Welcome to the grifting Olympics in online gambling
34 views
Skip to first unread message
Georgia Jenkins
Sep 25, 2026, 7:31:12 AM (12 days ago) Sep 25
Reply to author
Sign in to reply to author
Forward
Sign in to forward
Delete
You do not have permission to delete messages in this group
Copy link
Report message
Show original message
Either email addresses are anonymous for this group or you need the view member email addresses permission to view the original message
to ipkat_...@googlegroups.com
Home / Amendment of particulars of claim / CDPA 1988 / chain of title / Copyright infringement / gambling / Georgia Jenkins / liability of online platforms / matched betting / pleadings / trade mark infringement / Welcome to the grifting Olympics in online gambling
Welcome to the grifting Olympics in online gambling
Online gambling entrepreneur Samuel Stoffel is known for creating a matched betting platform called Outplayed, which he sold to Betconnect in 2024. However, Stoffel’s £10m ‘exit’ was far from clean.
In 2025, ‘the world’s largest sports betting and gaming groups both online and in the retail sector’, the Entain Group, commenced trade mark and copyright infringement proceedings against the new owner of Outplayed’s parent company, Liquidity Trading Ltd, its subsidiaries, and Stoffel. While matched betting certainly falls part of a wider discussion on new online business models in the online gambling industry, earlier this month the defendants sought to strike out claims relating to copyright infringement.
Matched betting and its IP implications
Outplayed defines matched betting as ‘a way of turning bookie free bets into cash’. The platform guides users to place multiple bets on the same event to ‘lock in a guaranteed profit – as long as you do it correctly’. A form of hedging your bets, matched betting platforms link users to promotional bets from sports betting and gaming websites. Naturally, this use reproduces logos and website-related content without authorization.
The defendants opined that this use is merely referential, training and educational guidance. Reflecting on the gambling industry’s treatment of vulnerable gamblers, Stoffel has explained that ‘anything that takes money from the bookies’ pockets into normal people’s pockets is a very good thing’.
Despite pressure to obtain a gambling licence, in Stoffel’s view, matched betting is distinct from gambling and offers its users a ‘smart bet with a guaranteed return’. However recent gambling studies research indicates that matched betting comprises a far more complex picture of harm – this includes submissions to the gambling white paper in 2023 (e.g. Betknowmore UK).
Even if matched betting platforms function as interactive ‘how-to’ guides, this Kat remains sceptical of ‘Robin Hood’-esque rhetoric. Post-exit, Stoffel has pivoted to general ‘how to get rich’ advice on social media (here). Akin to Shakespearean metatheatre, Stoffel seems to use the matched betting platform as a blueprint for success. Such success, according to Stoffel, requires copying other businesses. Stoffel explains that:
Yet whether this use is a form of trade mark infringement remains an open question as the judgment centres on whether the claimants pleaded the copyright infringement claims correctly pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) on striking out a statement of case (rule 3.4).
Perhaps the claimants’ reliance on copyright infringement claims, following recent cases where an electric cooker control panel CAD drawing (AGA Rangemaster v UK Innovations) and simple logos (Lidl; Conrad Lant v Plastic Head Music Distribution Ltd) (IPKat here and here) were found to be artistic works, is useful to avoid tricky questions around trade mark use, functions and defences that account for fair competition (e.g. referential use, honest concurrent use and acquiescence). In comparison, the copyright quotation exception (s. 30(1ZA) of the CDPA) would likely be much harder to prove given the functional and claimed ‘parasitic’ nature of matched betting platforms.
Matched betting platforms like Outplayed may insist that ‘[w]in, lose or draw, you’ll make money’, but users can also experience real losses just like the defendants.
In 2025, ‘the world’s largest sports betting and gaming groups both online and in the retail sector’, the Entain Group, commenced trade mark and copyright infringement proceedings against the new owner of Outplayed’s parent company, Liquidity Trading Ltd, its subsidiaries, and Stoffel. While matched betting certainly falls part of a wider discussion on new online business models in the online gambling industry, earlier this month the defendants sought to strike out claims relating to copyright infringement.
 |
| Photo by Yulin Wang on Unsplash |
Matched betting and its IP implications
Outplayed defines matched betting as ‘a way of turning bookie free bets into cash’. The platform guides users to place multiple bets on the same event to ‘lock in a guaranteed profit – as long as you do it correctly’. A form of hedging your bets, matched betting platforms link users to promotional bets from sports betting and gaming websites. Naturally, this use reproduces logos and website-related content without authorization.
The defendants opined that this use is merely referential, training and educational guidance. Reflecting on the gambling industry’s treatment of vulnerable gamblers, Stoffel has explained that ‘anything that takes money from the bookies’ pockets into normal people’s pockets is a very good thing’.
Despite pressure to obtain a gambling licence, in Stoffel’s view, matched betting is distinct from gambling and offers its users a ‘smart bet with a guaranteed return’. However recent gambling studies research indicates that matched betting comprises a far more complex picture of harm – this includes submissions to the gambling white paper in 2023 (e.g. Betknowmore UK).
Even if matched betting platforms function as interactive ‘how-to’ guides, this Kat remains sceptical of ‘Robin Hood’-esque rhetoric. Post-exit, Stoffel has pivoted to general ‘how to get rich’ advice on social media (here). Akin to Shakespearean metatheatre, Stoffel seems to use the matched betting platform as a blueprint for success. Such success, according to Stoffel, requires copying other businesses. Stoffel explains that:
99% of successful businesses are proven concepts. They’re just slightly adapted. They’re just pivoted a little bit. It’s changed who it’s for. It’s delivered in a novel new way. It’s a bit faster.Questionable statistics aside, matched betting has clearly disrupted the gambling industry. In response, Stoffel continues to characterise it as a legitimate way to ‘take advantage’ of the industry. This inherently involves benefiting from the Entain Group portfolio’s long list of established brands in sports betting and casino gambling, namely the following:
The claimants' sports logos:
The claimants' casino logos:
A ‘how to’ guide for pleading copyright infringement claims
The main issue is that the above logos, alongside the claimants’ websites, were merely identified as artistic (graphic) works pursuant to s. 1(1) and s. 4(1)(a) of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Beyond the submission of screenshots of the infringing websites that link to the claimants’ businesses and stating the test for originality, the claimants argued that subsistence and ownership can be proven by witness evidence.
The defendants counterclaimed that this lacking detail makes it difficult to respond to the case against them. This is despite an original Particulars of Claim, a Reply, a draft amended version of the Particulars of Claim, three witness statements and months of intensive internal investigations by the claimant on the development of the logos and websites. For example, in response to the defendants’ argument that there is lacking particularity over what components of the website are allegedly infringed, the claimants listed some employees as designers of some website elements (e.g. layout and banners). However, only one of these employees was employed by a claimant company.
Even further, the inclusion of individuals or unconnected entities within the long design processes complicated both the identification of the relevant work (the ‘original work’ vs the ‘final work’), the originality of the allegedly infringed work and the extent that the copied elements demonstrate creative choices (e.g. Interlego AG v Tyco Industries), and the claimants’ chain of title. Regarding originality, the claimants compared the development process of the logos to a sculpture or dramatic work and argued that it is unnecessary to plead design revisions in the Particulars of Claims. Further, the claimants, represented by the same counsel for Lidl in Lidl v Tesco (IPKat here), submitted that in Lidl the use of a third-party agency only became apparent through evidence.
Although the court agreed with the claimants that the websites, taken as a whole, can be claimed as artistic works, it disagreed that the pleadings sufficiently identified the original elements. The court also distinguished the direct application of Lidl regarding the logos as the former had a more straightforward development history that was tied to one logo and one claimant. Instead, the court found that the ‘long and convoluted history’ of the logos’ development required enquiries that should not be challenging for a big company to undertake before the claim is commenced, and if not, there is always the registered trade mark system.
It was also submitted that the lacking chain of title challenged arguments relating to ownership, exclusive licences and the application of statutory presumptions. The amended pleadings submitted that the claimants’ ownership could be inferred from the facts, namely the Entain Group’s acquisition of various brands. However, as accepted by one of their witnesses, future assignments remain necessary to complete the chain of title from creation to the claimants. The core defect across all copyright infringement claims was that there was no clear outline of creation and first publication. This further weakened arguments relating to exclusive licences, which also requires the owner who granted the licence to join the claim (s. 102(1) CDPA) alongside the presumptions in s. 104(4) and (5) of the CDPA, which require an explanation of first publication.
Although there was an argument that the identified authors were not qualified persons (s. 154 (1) and (2) of the CDPA), nor that the UK or another qualifying jurisdiction was the country of first publication (s 155 (1) and/or (2) of the CDPA), the court found that the ‘overwhelming likelihood’ is that this was indeed the case. Notwithstanding these findings, the court struck out the copyright infringement claims, but gave the claimants the opportunity to remedy these defects and file and serve an amended Particulars of Claim.
Comment
Bookmakers’ concerns regarding the disruptive effect of matched betting platforms reminds this Kat of those related to the EU copyright platform saga (e.g. Article 17 of the Digital Single Market Directive). The monetisation of matched betting, to repeat Stoffel above, takes advantage of the gambling industry – specifically, the value associated with the acquired logos. When an intermediary benefits from providing user services that use logos and website-related material, potentially protected by copyright and trade mark law, to what extent should they be liable? While the EU has introduced new platform governance regulations (e.g. Digital Services Act), in the UK, brand owners like Entain primarily rely upon trade mark infringement and secondary/accessory liability (e.g. Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed) which have not undergone an extensive EU-style makeover.
The main issue is that the above logos, alongside the claimants’ websites, were merely identified as artistic (graphic) works pursuant to s. 1(1) and s. 4(1)(a) of the Copyright, Design and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA). Beyond the submission of screenshots of the infringing websites that link to the claimants’ businesses and stating the test for originality, the claimants argued that subsistence and ownership can be proven by witness evidence.
The defendants counterclaimed that this lacking detail makes it difficult to respond to the case against them. This is despite an original Particulars of Claim, a Reply, a draft amended version of the Particulars of Claim, three witness statements and months of intensive internal investigations by the claimant on the development of the logos and websites. For example, in response to the defendants’ argument that there is lacking particularity over what components of the website are allegedly infringed, the claimants listed some employees as designers of some website elements (e.g. layout and banners). However, only one of these employees was employed by a claimant company.
Even further, the inclusion of individuals or unconnected entities within the long design processes complicated both the identification of the relevant work (the ‘original work’ vs the ‘final work’), the originality of the allegedly infringed work and the extent that the copied elements demonstrate creative choices (e.g. Interlego AG v Tyco Industries), and the claimants’ chain of title. Regarding originality, the claimants compared the development process of the logos to a sculpture or dramatic work and argued that it is unnecessary to plead design revisions in the Particulars of Claims. Further, the claimants, represented by the same counsel for Lidl in Lidl v Tesco (IPKat here), submitted that in Lidl the use of a third-party agency only became apparent through evidence.
Although the court agreed with the claimants that the websites, taken as a whole, can be claimed as artistic works, it disagreed that the pleadings sufficiently identified the original elements. The court also distinguished the direct application of Lidl regarding the logos as the former had a more straightforward development history that was tied to one logo and one claimant. Instead, the court found that the ‘long and convoluted history’ of the logos’ development required enquiries that should not be challenging for a big company to undertake before the claim is commenced, and if not, there is always the registered trade mark system.
It was also submitted that the lacking chain of title challenged arguments relating to ownership, exclusive licences and the application of statutory presumptions. The amended pleadings submitted that the claimants’ ownership could be inferred from the facts, namely the Entain Group’s acquisition of various brands. However, as accepted by one of their witnesses, future assignments remain necessary to complete the chain of title from creation to the claimants. The core defect across all copyright infringement claims was that there was no clear outline of creation and first publication. This further weakened arguments relating to exclusive licences, which also requires the owner who granted the licence to join the claim (s. 102(1) CDPA) alongside the presumptions in s. 104(4) and (5) of the CDPA, which require an explanation of first publication.
Although there was an argument that the identified authors were not qualified persons (s. 154 (1) and (2) of the CDPA), nor that the UK or another qualifying jurisdiction was the country of first publication (s 155 (1) and/or (2) of the CDPA), the court found that the ‘overwhelming likelihood’ is that this was indeed the case. Notwithstanding these findings, the court struck out the copyright infringement claims, but gave the claimants the opportunity to remedy these defects and file and serve an amended Particulars of Claim.
Comment
Bookmakers’ concerns regarding the disruptive effect of matched betting platforms reminds this Kat of those related to the EU copyright platform saga (e.g. Article 17 of the Digital Single Market Directive). The monetisation of matched betting, to repeat Stoffel above, takes advantage of the gambling industry – specifically, the value associated with the acquired logos. When an intermediary benefits from providing user services that use logos and website-related material, potentially protected by copyright and trade mark law, to what extent should they be liable? While the EU has introduced new platform governance regulations (e.g. Digital Services Act), in the UK, brand owners like Entain primarily rely upon trade mark infringement and secondary/accessory liability (e.g. Lifestyle Equities v Ahmed) which have not undergone an extensive EU-style makeover.
Perhaps the claimants’ reliance on copyright infringement claims, following recent cases where an electric cooker control panel CAD drawing (AGA Rangemaster v UK Innovations) and simple logos (Lidl; Conrad Lant v Plastic Head Music Distribution Ltd) (IPKat here and here) were found to be artistic works, is useful to avoid tricky questions around trade mark use, functions and defences that account for fair competition (e.g. referential use, honest concurrent use and acquiescence). In comparison, the copyright quotation exception (s. 30(1ZA) of the CDPA) would likely be much harder to prove given the functional and claimed ‘parasitic’ nature of matched betting platforms.
Matched betting platforms like Outplayed may insist that ‘[w]in, lose or draw, you’ll make money’, but users can also experience real losses just like the defendants.
Do you want to reuse the IPKat content? Please refer to our 'Policies' section. If you have any queries or requests for permission, please get in touch with the IPKat team.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages