England and Wales High Court Sides with Parimatch in Trademark Battle

Parimatch has come out on top in a drawn-out trademark fight after the England and Wales High Court threw out major claims against the company. 

Parimatch Wins Trademark Battle but Faces Court’s Criticism Over Strategy

The legal tussle, which focused on ending a licensing deal in the Turkish grey market, saw the court side with Parimatch while blasting its game plan as misleading.

Abudantia BV, a company that supplies gaming services to other businesses, sued Fastron and Rillius, two companies connected to Parimatch. Abudantia said Parimatch broke the law when it ended a Trademark Licensing Agreement (TLA) for an online gambling platform. It also accused the defendants of working together to destroy its business. However, the court decided that Parimatch had the right to end the agreement, reported Next.io. The court also found no proof that the companies had teamed up to hurt Abudantia.

The fight started when Parimatch and Abudantia teamed up to break into the Turkish-speaking online gaming world. Turkey’s iffy rules made Parimatch want to sneak in sideways. So, they joined forces with Abudantia through a white-label deal, which turned into a joint venture later on.

The deal let Abudantia use the Parimatch brand for its website Paribahis.com. The contract said it would run for a year from when the site kicked off in January 2021. They could keep it going if both sides liked how things were working out. However, in December 2021, Fastron sent a note to end the cooperation saying they were not happy with how the platform was doing. Abudantia, however, claimed the agreement had renewed on its own and blamed Parimatch-linked companies for trying to push it out of the market.

Court Confirms TLA Expiry, Rejects Abudantia’s Claims of Automatic Renewal

The court decided the TLA had ended on January 9, 2022, without extending. It also determined Abudantia could not prove the business had reached the performance goals needed to justify keeping the agreement going.

However, the ruling showed that Parimatch had on purpose made up a false story about its work in Turkey. The court pointed out that Parimatch had built a “trail of evidence” to make it look like someone had used its trademark without permission when in reality, they had an agreement. This plan aimed to protect the company from regulators.

Even with these findings, the court did not state Parimatch’s actions were a plot to take down Abudantia’s business. Instead, it saw them as a tough but separate attempt to enforce a positive brand image.

The case also showed Parimatch’s attempts to cut ties with Abudantia. In early 2022, Rillius sent letters to many of Abudantia’s business partners stating that the company could no longer use the Parimatch trademark. This caused some service providers to end their relationships with Abudantia.

What is more, in June 2022, Rillius tried to take over the Paribahis.com domain by filing a complaint with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

However, WIPO decided that Rillius had acted in bad faith by not revealing its past relationship with Abudantia and turned down the claim.Although Parimatch won its legal battle by dodging claims of conspiracy, the court’s critique of its strategies sheds light on the tricky task of managing brands in grey markets.