Maltese Court Rejects Entain’s Legal Action Against Sportingwin
Maltese Court Denies Entain’s Request to Reinstate Ban on Sportingwin
A legal dispute between two major players in the online betting industry has taken another turn. The Maltese Civil Court ruled against Entain Operations Limited in its attempt to reinstate a ban on SB Entertainment Limited, the company operating Sportingwin.
Judge Points Out Procedural Errors in Entain’s Trademark Case
On July 9, 2025, Judge Ian Spiteri Bailey highlighted that Entain’s request to revive a previous court order did not comply with the required legal procedures. The court noted that the submission failed to meet the stringent procedural standards specified by Malta’s intellectual property regulations under Chapter 488, which govern expedited legal actions in such matters.
Entain, a prominent online betting operator and owner of Sportingbet, had sought to prevent Sportingwin from using its branding, arguing that Sportingwin’s name and logo closely resembled Sportingbet’s, potentially causing consumer confusion and resulting in significant financial damage.
Previously, in June 2024, a Maltese court had imposed a temporary injunction against Sportingwin’s branding. However, this injunction was overturned in October 2024 after another court ruling recognized that both companies held legitimate European trademarks. The court clarified that neither party held exclusive trademark rights, affirming that both trademarks carried equal legal status under European Union law.
Judge Advises Entain to Concentrate on Trademark Merits Rather Than Procedural Tactics
In the recent ruling, the judge declared Entain’s attempt to reinstate the injunction as legally unfounded. The court emphasized the importance of adhering strictly to the special legal framework governing intellectual property disputes in Malta. Additionally, the judge warned against using procedural maneuvers as a substitute for full legal consideration of the trademark issues at hand.
SB Entertainment argued that allowing Entain’s request would unjustly impose a permanent restriction without properly addressing the underlying trademark conflict. The court appeared to share this concern, urging both companies to prioritize resolving the core trademark dispute over engaging in procedural stratagems.
Despite this judicial setback, Entain continues to pursue the cancellation of Sportingwin’s trademark through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). This process is expected to be lengthy and presents no certainty of success for Entain. This ruling follows another recent defeat at the EUIPO, where Entain failed to block an Italian competitor, Sportbet, from securing a trademark. These challenges make defending Entain’s brand presence across Europe increasingly difficult.
