Entain’s copyright case against matched-betting businesses has been struck out unless amended after the High Court found that the claims lacked sufficient detail. The ruling, issued on September 10, 2026, does not end the wider dispute because Entain’s trademark claims remain active.

Mr Justice Cawson issued the decision during a case management stage in Entain Operations Ltd & Ors v Liquidity Trading Ltd & Ors. The proceedings concern businesses behind Outplayed, OddsMonkey, Team Profit and Team Casino.

Those businesses provide information and tools linked to bookmaker offers in Great Britain. The case therefore tests how intellectual-property rights apply to services that direct customers towards licensed bookmakers’ promotions.

Why the copyright claim failed

The judge found that Entain had not pleaded its copyright allegations with enough factual detail. The deficiencies included:

  • identifying the authors of the disputed works;
  • stating the relevant publication dates;
  • specifying the original elements on which Entain relied; and
  • showing the ownership chain for websites, sports logos and casino logos.

The ruling was procedural. It was not a final finding that the disputed material could never qualify for copyright protection.

The court ordered that the copyright claim be struck out unless Entain promptly amends its pleadings to address the defects. Entain may still seek to identify the creators and establish assignments or exclusive licences.

The decision highlights the importance of documenting rights obtained through agencies, historic brand acquisitions and transfers between group companies. Long-term use of material does not, by itself, establish the authorship and ownership details required in a claim.

Trademark allegations survive

The High Court did not strike out the trademark infringement claims. The defendants accepted that those claims were sufficiently pleaded and had a real prospect of success.

The defendants are expected to rely on arguments including referential use, honest practices and the absence of a commercial connection with Entain.

The surviving claims concern about 18 Entain trademarks associated with brands including:

  • Ladbrokes;
  • Coral;
  • bwin; and
  • Sportingbet.

They focus on how matched-betting websites used brand names, marks and related information. The trademark claims do not depend on reconstructing the authorship history of every logo or website element.

The ruling narrows Entain’s case, but leaves the central trademark dispute for a later stage.

Why the case matters in Great Britain

Matched-betting businesses generally present themselves as information, training or educational services rather than gambling operators. They may refer users to bookmaker promotions and explain how betting activity can be coordinated across different markets.

That model operates close to the commercial activity of licensed bookmakers without necessarily making the service itself a licensed gambling operator. The litigation could clarify how far bookmakers can use intellectual-property law to challenge the commercial use of their brands by such services.

For Entain, the copyright setback increases the importance of the trademark claims. Those claims focus on the use of brand identifiers and do not require the same detailed evidence about who created each underlying design asset.

What happens next

Entain must decide whether to amend its copyright case within the period allowed by the court. If it cannot identify the relevant authors and establish the rights chain, the proceedings could continue only on trademark issues.

The September 10 decision is an interlocutory ruling. It does not determine whether the defendants infringed Entain’s trademarks, whether their use was protected as a legitimate reference to bookmaker services, or which side will ultimately prevail.

The High Court proceedings therefore remain unresolved.