The issue was outlined in a letter written by Simon Zinger, who serves as the group general counsel and chief customer care officer for Entain. The letter was addressed to IPO chief executive and comptroller-general Adam Williams.
According to Entain, the review was carried out on 18 gambling brands, which the company thought were serving British consumers without a Gambling Commission license. Of those 18 brands, 14 did not hold a valid operating license.
The operator says this leads to a loophole between the two systems. While gambling regulation prohibits unlicensed operators from targeting the British market, the trademark registration process may still allow them to register brand names in the UK.
Entain Seeks a Licensing Check
Entain argues that a UK registration can give such operators commercial legitimacy. The company is proposing that the IPO consider whether gambling trademark applications should require proof of a valid gambling license from the Gambling Commission. Entain also wants the IPO to consider whether existing public policy provisions could apply when the intended gambling activity would be illegal under the Gambling Act.
The letter refers to several brands that Entain said held UK trademarks despite lacking a Gambling Commission license. It also highlights one example with alleged Russian links.
Under section 33 of the Gambling Act 2005, the provision of gambling facilities in Great Britain without the relevant license is a criminal offense. Entain argues that the trademark system should not extend legal protections to operators outside the UK licensing regime.
IPO Points to Legal Limits
The IPO has not dismissed the issue offhand. In its response on 2 June, Williams said Entain’s concerns and proposals had been referred to trademark policy officials.
However, the IPO has stated that the current legal framework gives it limited room to act. According to Williams, an objection based on public policy usually relates to the trademark rather than any misconduct by the applicant or how the mark is applied.
This is because a gambling brand may be perfectly legal as a trademark despite the fact that the underlying business may have regulatory issues.
Williams has also stated that the United Kingdom does not have a trademark registration process comparable to what Companies House provides in regard to some restricted names. On sanctions, Williams noted that the IPO does not accept fees or provide services to sanctioned parties, either directly or through agents.
Market Impact
The dispute adds another pressure point in Britain’s action against offshore gambling sites. Blocking payments, advertising, and web access remains difficult when brands can still use formal business tools.
For licensed operators, the problem is commercial as well because they have to bear regulatory expenses, undergo inspection, and provide safer gambling services. Unlicensed rivals may avoid many of those obligations.
The UK may need a cleaner link between gambling licensing and brand protection. The IPO cannot rewrite trademark law alone, but Entain’s letter puts pressure on policymakers to close a gap that illegal operators may be using to look legitimate.
