Author: andy-lee

Brandsmiths acted for the Defendants in Entain v Liquidity Trading, where the High Court ordered that the Claimants' copyright claims be struck out unless properly repleaded.

A recent High Court judgment has provided an important reminder that copyright enforcement begins with getting the fundamentals right. In Entain Operations Ltd & Ors v Liquidity Trading Ltd & Ors [2026] EWHC 2330 (Ch), Brandsmiths acted for the Defendants in successfully challenging the adequacy of the Claimants' copyright pleadings.

The Court has ordered the Claimants’ copyright claims to be struck out unless they are properly repleaded within a prescribed period.

There is an unusual backdrop to the dispute. The Defendants operate matched-betting and casino-offer services which help consumers take advantage of bookmakers’ promotional offers and reduce their exposure to sporting outcomes. That creates a slightly curious dynamic: major betting operators bringing IP claims against businesses whose model is, broadly speaking, designed to help customers extract value from those operators’ own promotions.

For copyright lawyers, though, one of the most interesting aspects of the judgment is what it says about pleading.

The Claimants argued, relying heavily on Lidl v Tesco, that it was unnecessary to plead the detailed history and development of the works relied upon and that issues concerning originality, ownership and the evolution of those works could be addressed through evidence and disclosure as the case progressed.

Cawson J’s judgment is an important reminder of the limits of that approach. The fact that a company has used a well-known logo for many years does not remove the need to plead the facts necessary to establish its cause of action. A claimant must identify the copyright work with sufficient precision and properly establish its title to sue.

That is particularly interesting following the recent Shein v Temu judgment, which highlighted from a different angle the problems that can arise where copyright ownership and chain of title have not been properly established before enforcement begins.

We have seen the other side of this ourselves. In the recent Peppa Pig litigation, where we act for the copyright owner, establishing and pleading the artistic work copyright case involved a painstaking exercise in tracing the history and development of some of the works relied upon. It was not always easy but it was necessary.

Copyright may arise automatically, but there is nothing informal about proving it in litigation. A copyright claim ultimately requires a claimant to identify the work and what is original about it, establish its authorship and first ownership, and trace the chain of title through to the claimant. Big companies are not exempt from this.

You can read the full judgment here.