Publish: 22.12.2017

Bet365 Wins Trademark Infringement Battle

Most importantly for Bet365, the new ruling comes with teeth.

Bet365, one of the world’s largest and most well known online casino and sports betting brands, has won its battle to have its brand name and iconography protected under European Union (EU) intellectual property law.

The ruling was handed down by the European Union General Court and ends a decade old dispute over the right of Bet365 to have file its trademark with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

What’s In a Name?

The core of the issue was that the EUIPO had refused to grant Bet365 the intellectual property protections routinely granted to other businesses.

Its reasoning stemmed from the requirement that it’s branding be unique. In the past, it had been ruled that the name ‘Bet365’ merely described the company’s product, and therefore did not meet the requirement of a distinctive brand in the market.

However, new evidence and arguments had come to light in recent years proving that the Bet365 brand is known and respected as a unique company by gamblers all around the world. In addition, Bet365 argued that there were seven different areas critical to its industry — including gambling apparatuses and online casino computer software — in which it had a clear distinction from competitors.

EU General Court Ends Dispute For Good

Most importantly for Bet365, the new ruling comes with teeth. And not only that, it also comes with a sense of finality.

In ruling in favor of the company, the EU General Court emphasized that the evidence of the unique nature of the Bet365 brand is so evident as to not warrant any further judicial discussion. To that end, the court didn’t not even need to hear any final arguments, but simply put the dispute to rest once and for all.

“Consequently, with regard to those services, the single plea in law seeking annulment is well founded and there is no need to examine the last arguments put forward by the applicant concerning the lack of opinion polls or evidence from a chamber of commerce in respect of which it was criticised by the Board of Appeal,” the court said in its ruling.