Parimatch Wins Trademark Dispute as Court Rejects Conspiracy

Does brand protection justify misleading legal tactics? In a landmark ruling, the England and Wales High Court sided with Parimatch, rejecting allegations of conspiracy and malicious intent in a bitter trademark dispute with Abudantia BV. However, while the court upheld Parimatch’s termination of the licensing agreement, it criticized the company’s legal strategy, calling it misleading and deceptive. With this case now settled, what does it mean for brand management, grey market operations, and gambling industry legal battles?

Parimatch Wins UK Trademark Dispute, But Court Criticizes Deceptive Legal Tactics

Key Points:

1. UK Court Sides with Parimatch in Trademark Dispute

   • The court ruled that Parimatch lawfully terminated its trademark licensing agreement (TLA) with Abudantia.
   • Justice Dias rejected claims of conspiracy, stating Abudantia failed to prove intentional business sabotage.

2. Parimatch’s Brand Protection Strategy Criticized

   • The court found that Parimatch created misleading legal threats to protect itself from regulatory scrutiny.
   • These tactics included fabricating legal documents and falsely denying Turkish market involvement.

3. Abudantia’s Allegations of Business Sabotage Dismissed

   • Emails revealed that Parimatch executives planned an “evidence trail” to deflect legal risks.
   • Despite these findings, the judge ruled this was a defensive measure, not a coordinated conspiracy.

Court Dismisses Conspiracy Allegations in Parimatch Trademark Battle

The England and Wales High Court has ruled in favor of Parimatch, dismissing Abudantia BV’s claims of conspiracy while criticizing the gambling giant’s legal strategy. The dispute revolved around a trademark licensing agreement (TLA), with Abudantia alleging that Parimatch executives conspired to destroy its business.

The case highlights the complexities of brand protection in grey markets, particularly as major gambling operators expand globally while navigating legal risks.

The Trademark Licensing Agreement (TLA) and Dispute Origins

At the heart of the case was a 2020 deal between Abudantia and Fastron, a Parimatch-affiliated company. Under this agreement:

• Abudantia operated an online gambling site, Paribahis.com, using the Parimatch brand.
• The TLA included an initial one-year lock-in period, with a potential three-year extension based on performance.

However, in December 2021, Fastron terminated the agreement, citing poor business performance. Abudantia challenged the termination, arguing the agreement automatically renewed and accusing Parimatch of a malicious plan to seize its business.

Court Rules Against Abudantia, Validates Contract Termination

Justice Dias rejected Abudantia’s claims, ruling that:

• The TLA expired on January 9, 2022, with no automatic renewal.
• Abudantia failed to prove its business performance met the renewal criteria.
• Parimatch had the legal right to terminate the agreement.

Despite clearing Parimatch of conspiracy allegations, the court strongly condemned its brand protection tactics.

Parimatch’s Legal Tactics Under Scrutiny

Court documents revealed that Parimatch deliberately created misleading legal threats to:

1. Deny its involvement in the Turkish grey market if questioned by banks or regulators.
2. Frame Abudantia as an unauthorized operator, despite the existing TLA.
3. Manufacture an “evidence trail” to distance itself from Turkey, avoiding regulatory fallout.

Justice Dias criticized these tactics, stating:

“Parimatch was laying a paper trail to be deployed in the event that awkward questions were asked about its involvement in the Turkish market… This was plainly a misleading position and wholly disingenuous.”

Parimatch’s Connection to Entain and Betsson

The case also revealed that Parimatch was in merger discussions with Entain (formerly GVC Holdings) and engaged in talks with Betsson around the same time.

• Entain allegedly advised Parimatch to enter Turkey discreetly, stating, “Just do it cleverly.”
• Parimatch executives indicated they would publicly deny any involvement in Turkey if regulators or banks inquired.

Entain, which sold its Turkish operations in 2017, was not a party to the case and declined to comment.

WIPO Complaint and Additional Legal Disputes

In June 2022, Rillius—a Parimatch-linked entity—filed a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to seize the Paribahis.com domain.

• WIPO ruled that Rillius acted in bad faith by failing to disclose its past ties to Abudantia.
• The complaint was dismissed, further undermining Parimatch’s position.

Despite this, the UK court still ruled that Parimatch’s actions did not constitute a conspiracy but were part of a brand protection effort.

What This Ruling Means for the Gambling Industry

The Parimatch vs. Abudantia case highlights critical issues in global gambling expansion, brand protection, and regulatory risk management. The ruling sets important precedents:

1. Trademark agreements must be carefully structured to avoid disputes over renewal terms.
2. Legal strategies designed to protect brands must not cross ethical or misleading lines.
3. Regulators will scrutinize attempts to obscure involvement in grey markets, even if operators claim compliance.

What’s Next for Parimatch?

With the UK court ruling in its favor, Parimatch can:

1. Continue its brand protection efforts, though with greater transparency.
2. Refocus on regulated markets, as global gambling laws tighten.
3. Reassess its legal tactics, avoiding reputational damage in future disputes.

Meanwhile, Abudantia’s claims have been dismissed, meaning it has little legal recourse left. However, regulatory bodies and competitors may take note of Parimatch’s controversial legal tactics, increasing scrutiny on its future operations.

A Legal Victory, But at What Cost?

Parimatch wins the case but faces reputational damage due to its questionable legal tactics. While it escaped conspiracy charges, the ruling underscores the risks of aggressive brand protection strategies.

As gambling laws tighten globally, operators must strike a balance between expansion, compliance, and ethical business practices. The question now is: Will Parimatch’s legal strategy impact future gaming industry disputes?