Your Logo Might Be Yours, But Can You Prove It?

Businesses looking to enforce their rights without a clear paper trail of copyright ownership risk failing at the first hurdle. Trade mark ownership does not establish copyright ownership, and a claimant needs to get its copyright subsistence claims and legal title in order at the pleading stage rather than expecting to fill fundamental gaps later through evidence.

These issues were explored in Entain Operations Ltd & Ors v Liquidity Trading Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2330 (Ch) which provides some useful guidance. 

What happened

The Entain group (owner of brands including Coral, Ladbrokes, bwin, Foxy Bingo and PartyCasino) sued the operators of matched betting websites for copyright and trade mark infringement over the use of its sports and casino logos to link users through to bookmakers’ promotional offers.

At the case management conference, the defendant website operators applied to strike out Entain’s copyright claim, arguing that Entain had not explained who created the logos, who owned the copyright, or how ownership had passed to the claimant companies. 

The judge ordered that Entain's copyright claim be struck out unless Entain amended its case to fix the gaps within a set time period. 

Why Entain's case fell short

The core problems were the way Entain had pleaded its case and the evidential gaps regarding authorship and ownership. Many of Entain's logos had complex histories involving brand acquisitions and external design agencies. Entain failed to adequately plead how copyright had passed from those original creators to the specific claimant company asserting the right.

The court rejected Entain's pleaded case that copyright ownership could sufficiently be inferred from matters including its trade mark registrations, longstanding use and the absence of competing claims.

Copyright and registered trade mark rights operate differently. A claimant asserting copyright must adequately plead the facts establishing subsistence of the right and its title to sue, including, where relevant, authorship and the chain of title. Longstanding commercial use is not a substitute for copyright title.

Entain maintained that it is unnecessary to set out every historical version of a logo in pleadings (which it argued should instead be matters for evidence). However, the court noted that ordinarily a party would have carried out the relevant enquiries regarding its logo before commencing its claim and a statement of case should enable the defendant to identify and address the case they are required to answer.

The judge also held that where a logo has evolved over several versions, copyright in the current version may protect only what is new in that version. Each iteration must be assessed separately for originality.

Practical takeaways

Businesses looking to enforce copyright in their logos should be able to identify the relevant copyright work(s), explain its originality and establish how they acquired the copyright they seek to enforce. In practice, this might mean:

• Identifying any gaps in authorship or chain of title and addressing these ideally before commencing enforcement proceedings;

• Obtaining written and signed copyright assignments from designers, agencies and freelancers (preferably at the time);

• Checking that IP in logos is properly transferred on acquisitions and group reorganisations; and

• Keeping records of each version of a logo and who created it, and if/when/how ownership is assigned.

The judge also observed that businesses with long-established brands have other ways of protecting their logos, including through registered trade marks.

This article was co-authored by Isabel Cairns and Bethany Wheeler-Fowler. If you wish to discuss any of the matters raised in this article, please contact Emily Roberts or Holly Webb or your usual IP team contact. 

Subscribe to our Concept newsletter and receive the latest intellectual property legal updates, news and event invitations direct to your inbox.