The First Hall of the Civil Court in Valletta ruled on 9 July that Entain’s move to revive an interim ban on Sportingwin had no legal basis.
The First Hall of the Civil Court in Valletta ruled on 9 July that Entain’s move to revive an interim ban on Sportingwin had no legal basis.
Judge Ian Spiteri Bailey said Entain’s summons was “irregular and null and void”, and that the court would abstain from taking further notice of it.
Entain had asked the court to bring back a June 2024 order that blocked SB Entertainment from using the Sportingwin name and logos, which Entain argued resembled its Sportingbet brand.
That injunction was lifted in October 2024, when a differently presided court found both sides held valid EU trade marks and refused to favour one over the other.
It also highlighted the limits of Malta’s fast-track IP rules, known as Cap 488, which the judge described as a “lex specialis” that must be followed strictly in trademark rows.
In its filing, Entain argued that the Sportingwin brand “infringes and will continue to irreparably infringe” Sportingbet’s earlier marks because it is likely to confuse customers.
SB Entertainment countered that Maltese law gives equal standing to registered marks and said restoring the ban would amount to a permanent injunction without a full hearing.
The judge stressed that “the determination of the merits still remains” and urged both parties to pursue the substantive trademark fight instead of procedural skirmishes.
Entain can still try to cancel Sportingwin’s EU mark in proceedings already open at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), but that route could take years to conclude.
It follows EUIPO moving to reject Entain’s attempt to block an EU trademark application by an Italian operator named Sportbet.