A court has rejected Entain PLC’s attempt to block a brand registration of an Italian competitor, Sportbet.
Sportbet is launching on the Italian market with its own array of gambling services. At first glance this is good news, especially for local players who are looking for new options.
However, one party in particular that has not taken a liking to this development is Entain, which owns the ‘Sportingbet’ brand that also operates domestically in Italy.
Things became serious when the Isle of Man-based gambling conglomerate filed a complaint with the EU’s Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), responsible for EU trademarks.
Arguing that it is too similar to its own Sportingbet property, Entain requested EUIPO to embargo the registration of Sportbet’s logo and brand.
Despite Entain’s powerful position in gaming, the Office rejected the request, not only ordering the company to pay Sportbet €300 in legal fees, but also taking an indirect dig at the corporation’s marketing department.
In its ruling, EUIPO concluded that there are not enough grounds to consider ‘Sportingbet’ – together with its logo – as a particularly distinctive brand that requires explicit goods and services protection under EU law.
According to the Office, ‘sporting’ and ‘bet’ are nothing more than two words with English roots that describe what customers should expect when engaging with the brand.
“The mark consists of common English words which are easily understood by the English-speaking customer alone, as well as in the overall combination.
“‘Sportingbet…will be perceived by the relevant public as a common description of the kind and intended purpose the goods and services relate to, namely the betting on sporting events.”
The EUIPO’s statement would prove a difficult read for even the most hardened of brand marketing veterans, let alone for Sportingbet’s department. The brand was described as practically unfit for the protection sought by Entain.
The public beating concluded: “These elements are so negligible that they do not endow the trade mark as a whole with any distinctive character.
“The Office agrees that a minimum degree of distinctiveness is sufficient to render a mark registrable. However, in this case, the Office finds the mark devoid of any distinctive character.”
