Entain’s Legal Challenge Against Match Betting Sites Hits Sudden Snag

The UK High Court has dealt a significant blow to Entain’s efforts to strike against several popular matched betting businesses. While the operator alleged that platforms such as Outplayed and OddsMonkey infringed on its trademark and copyright, the court rejected most of these claims. However, Entain may press its trademark claims, aiming at the core of the matched betting business model. Sportsbooks Dislike Matched Betting Platforms Entain’s legal challenge began in August 2025, when the operator sued matched betting platforms Outplayed.com and Oddsmonkey, alleging that their use of logos and website screenshots from Entain’s subsidiaries constituted trademark and copyright infringement. The group also called these platforms “parasitic” businesses because they rely solely on other companies, hurting their business. While matched betting is not illegal, several sportsbooks have condemned the practice. Platforms like Oddsmonkey provide users with detailed guides and software to help turn bonuses into profit, something that bookmakers argue undermines the value of their customer promotions. Many believe that Entain’s lawsuit is an attempt to strike back against these businesses. According to Entain, matched betting platforms abuse copyrighted and trademarked material by incorporating its brands into their business practices. The gambling giant points to screenshots of its website and promotion links that contain its logo. Meanwhile, the defendants argue that they just provide the public with information and that their activities are protected under the Trade Marks Act. Trademark Infringement Allegations Remain Active The newest ruling by Mr Justice Cawson determined that Entain’s copyright claims were not as sound as the operator claimed. The court ruled that brand logos belonging to Ladbrokes, Coral, Sportingbet, and others could not be properly traced as definitively belonging to Entain. The defendants had argued that the designs of the Ladbrokes and Coral logos were outsourced and several decades old. Entain has a short window to reinstate its copyright claims by providing amended information about ownership details, authors, and publication dates. According to the court, corporate acquisitions alone were not enough to determine ownership of the registered marks, even if they remained in use for a long period of time and there were no competing claims. Despite this setback, the High Court did not strike down Entain’s trademark claims, meaning that the case may proceed to trial. This raises the question of what would happen if the gambling giant wins the legal battle. Such a development would deal a significant blow to the UK matched betting sector, potentially even affecting the broader gambling market.