Entain has called on the UK Intellectual Property Office to review how it handles trade mark registrations submitted by unlicensed gambling operators.
The company identified at least 14 unlicensed operators that had successfully secured UK trade mark rights after reviewing a sample of 18 gambling brands.
Entain believed those 18 brands were serving UK consumers without holding a valid Gambling Commission operating licence.
The findings were presented in a formal letter addressed to IPO chief executive and comptroller-general Adam Williams.
Entain group general counsel and chief customer care officer Simon Zinger argued the situation exposed a significant gap between gambling regulation and intellectual property law.
Zinger said: “The UK trade mark register is currently accessible to operators providing gambling services to UK consumers without a Gambling Commission operating licence. Operating gambling facilities in Great Britain without a licence is a criminal offence under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005.”
He continued: “Despite this, entities committing that offence can nonetheless register UK trade marks, acquire the commercial legitimacy that registration confers, and use the UK’s trade mark registration system to sustain operations that Parliament has expressly prohibited.”
Entain proposed that existing public policy provisions within trade mark law could potentially be applied to applicants whose intended commercial activity would be illegal under the Gambling Act.
The company also suggested exploring a licensing verification system that would require gambling operators to provide proof of a valid Gambling Commission licence before any trade mark registration could proceed.
The letter specifically highlighted several brands that Entain claimed held UK trade marks without a valid Gambling Commission licence, including one brand with alleged Russian links.
Zinger added: “The UK’s intellectual property system is rightly regarded as one of the best in the world. It would be a significant anomaly if that system continued, inadvertently, to extend its protections to operators who have placed themselves outside the law that governs the sector in which they operate.”
Williams replied on 2 June, confirming the IPO had passed Entain’s concerns to colleagues responsible for trade mark policy and that a meeting would be arranged to discuss the issues further.
However, Williams outlined clear constraints within the current legal framework that limit the IPO’s ability to act on applicant behaviour alone.
He said: “Both of the provisions mentioned above can only be used as the basis for an objection where there is an issue within the mark itself. The assessment of whether a mark is contrary to public policy, or whether its registration is prohibited in law, relates to the intrinsic properties of the mark itself. This does not involve an assessment of the actions of the applicant or how the mark is used.”
Williams also confirmed there is currently no trade mark approval system comparable to the Companies House rules that govern restricted company names.
On the question of Russian-linked brands, Williams noted that UK sanctions already extend to intellectual property rights, adding: “The IPO has moved quickly to implement sanctions which we are enforcing robustly. The IPO does not accept fees or provide associated services to those on the UK sanctions list, either directly or through their agents.”
