One Logo, Different Rights: Lessons from Entain on Trademarks, Copyright and Industrial Designs

A single logo may be protected as a trademark, as a graphic work under copyright and, if it meets the relevant requirements, as an industrial design. Each form of protection requires different evidence: registering the trademark does not, by itself, establish that you acquired the rights to the artwork. The English case of Entain v Liquidity Trading shows what can happen when that distinction arises in a claim. For businesses in Argentina, the practical lesson is clear: alongside choosing the right protection, you need to be able to trace who created the design and how the rights reached your company.

The Entain case: betting logos on third-party platforms

Entain, a group that owns several betting brands, sued the operators of platforms including Outplayed. These explained how to benefit from promotional offers through matched betting, using opposing bets. They displayed bookmakers’ logos to identify offers and reproduced content from their websites. The claimants alleged trademark and copyright infringement; the defendants relied on referential use, among other defences.

In Entain Operations Limited & Ors v Liquidity Trading Limited & Ors, [2026] EWHC 2330 (Ch), the court found that the copyright claim had not been adequately pleaded. The claimants needed to specify the works and their original contributions, identify which claimant held rights in each work and explain the chain of title. Successive design versions and corporate acquisitions made that history especially important.

This was a procedural decision. The court ruled that the copyright infringement allegations should be struck out, while contemplating that the strike-out would take effect only if the claimants failed to correct them within a prescribed period. It did not decide that the logos were unprotected or that Outplayed was free to copy them. The trademark merits remained unresolved.

Why the choice between a trademark claim and a copyright claim matters

A trademark distinguishes goods or services and identifies their commercial origin. Copyright protects creative expression. That difference changes the discussion: the same use may require an assessment of how a sign is presented to the public and, separately, whether a protected work was reproduced without permission.

Consider a platform that compares offers and places each supplier’s logo beside them. It may argue that the logo tells readers whose offer they are viewing. The supplier may challenge the presentation, an apparent commercial connection or the use of its reputation. If it also relies on rights in the artwork, another question arises: precisely which work was reproduced, and who is entitled to bring that claim?

Our reading is that copyright can change the ground on which a dispute is fought, but it does not remove its own requirements. A defence relevant to trademarks does not necessarily answer a reproduction claim. Conversely, describing a claim as copyright infringement does not replace the need to identify the work, establish its protection and show the claimant’s title. Nor does it justify disregarding the limits of either regime.

Different situations also need to be separated: naming a business, displaying its logo to identify it, reproducing a banner and copying the appearance of an entire webpage do not necessarily raise the same issue. The extent and context of the reproduction matter. We would therefore avoid predicting a single answer for every item used by a platform.

In Argentina, trademark registration does not settle the designer’s rights

Article 4 of Law 22,362 provides that ownership of a trademark and the exclusive right to use it are obtained through registration. That title has a specific function: protecting the sign within trademark law. It does not certify that every copyright interest in the image was transferred to the applicant.

A company may have commissioned its visual identity from an agency, received the files and registered the sign. To assess a claim over copying the artwork, it will also need to examine its relationship with the people who created it. The trademark file and the design contracts answer different questions; neither should be assumed from the other.

This also matters when buying a business. Acquiring a trademark, purchasing shares in a company and receiving an assignment of copyright are different transactions. Before concluding which assets passed to the buyer, the parties need to examine what was purchased, who owned it and which documents implemented the transaction.

Copyright: paying for the logo does not mean acquiring all its rights

Assessing a logo’s protection as a graphic work starts with identifying its original expression. The business name and the graphic work are not interchangeable: a sign that can be registered as a trademark does not automatically meet the requirements for copyright protection. The official Argentine guide to intellectual property distinguishes protection of creative works from ownership of ideas and includes drawings among protected works.

On ownership, Law 11,723 allows rights to be assigned and preserves certain author’s rights even after a work has been transferred. Article 54 distinguishes acquiring certain artistic works from acquiring reproduction rights, unless otherwise agreed. The specific rule in Article 4(d), concerning computer programs created by employees hired to develop them, should not be automatically applied to every logo.

It is therefore sensible to document in writing what the client receives: which design and versions the agreement covers, what reproductions and modifications are permitted, in which media and with what transfer rights. The agreement should also identify fonts, photographs or other third-party materials subject to their own licences. Delivery of the editable file does not, by itself, answer all these questions.

Where an agency was involved, checking only the final contract may not be enough. The designer–agency–client chain needs to explain the origin of the rights offered. A broad supplier clause does not automatically reconstruct a missing earlier link.

Copyright registration helps, but does not replace the chain of title

Registration provides documentation. It does not make someone who submits another person’s work its true author, or cure a missing assignment by itself. A business should keep its files, versions, contracts and relevant registration records together.

Article 63 of Law 11,723 also provides consequences for failure to register that need to be assessed in light of the work and the applicable treaty framework. We would not reduce this to “no registration means no rights”. We explain the distinction in our guide to copyright registration and deposits with Argentina’s National Copyright Office, the DNDA (in Spanish).

Industrial designs: another form of protection, with its own conditions

The comparison may also include industrial designs. Decree-Law 6,673/63 protects shapes or ornamental appearance applied to industrial or handicraft products. It requires registration and provides novelty requirements. An image’s commercial value or use as a trademark is not enough.

Training material from Argentina’s National Institute of Industrial Property, the INPI, includes logos, graphic symbols and interfaces among designs that may be filed. This makes the route worth considering for certain projects, without promising that any familiar logo can be registered after years of use. Prior disclosure and its dates need to be checked.

Two local distinctions matter. Article 1 contains a specific rule for designs created in an employment relationship, with exceptions depending on the engagement and instructions given. And Article 28 prevents simultaneous reliance on this regime and Law 11,723 in the judicial defence of the design covered by that provision.

The practical consequence is to distinguish possible overlapping protection from the way rights may be enforced in court. We would not recommend adding three legal labels to a claim without examining compatibility, the protected subject matter and the conduct challenged. Trademark distinctiveness, copyright originality and design novelty involve different assessments.

An example: a Córdoba business’s logo on a comparison site

Imagine you run an equipment business in Córdoba, Argentina, and an agency created its visual identity. You registered the trademark. Later, a price comparison site displays your logo to identify prices and also reproduces a banner created for a campaign.

The first step would be to preserve the publication, its date, the complete webpage and its context. Then identify what was used: the name, the logo version, the banner, photographs or a combination. It would also be worth checking whether any permission or relevant terms of use existed.

On trademarks, the assessment would consider how the business is presented and what relationship the comparison site suggests. On copyright, it would examine who created each item and which rights you acquired. If the banner contains a stock photograph, its licence deserves separate attention. If a registered design exists, its scope and the available enforcement strategy will matter.

Collecting screenshots of the copy is not enough: you also need to organise the history of the original. That work helps determine what to claim, against whom and to what extent, rather than sending a demand asserting rights that have not yet been documented.

What to check before commissioning, buying or bringing a claim over a design

Identify the asset. Keep approved versions and distinguish the logo from the rest of the visual identity. If there were redesigns, retain records of what changed and who was involved. This avoids treating different files as though they were a single creation.

Review the rights received. The agreement should make clear what you can use, modify, reproduce and transfer. If the supplier works with collaborators, you need supporting documentation for that chain. The same applies when buying a business with an established visual identity.

Choose protection to suit the project. Trademarks, copyright documentation and potential design registration need to be assessed against their own requirements and timelines. An early review can identify problems before packaging is printed, a campaign is launched or a new design is disclosed.

Define the dispute before making the claim. Identifying a business, suggesting an affiliation and reproducing a work may call for different arguments. The response should be grounded in the actual use and the rights you can establish.

In our intellectual property and trademark advisory work in Argentina, this combined review helps organise protection and assess disputes on a clear documentary basis. Entain is a useful reminder: a strategy starts with understanding the asset you hold and how it came into your hands.

Frequently asked questions

Does registering a logo as a trademark make me the owner of its design? Registration establishes a trademark right. Rights in the graphic work also require examination of its creation, the contracts and the relevant transfers.

Can I use another business’s logo simply to identify it? The context and the rights involved need to be assessed. An informational purpose matters, but it is not general permission to reproduce any graphic material or content.

Can a logo be protected as an industrial design? This may be an option if it meets the regime’s requirements. Before filing, the representation of the design, its novelty and any prior disclosure should be reviewed.

What should I keep if an agency created my visual identity? The contract, applicable assignments and permissions, final files, versions and records covering third-party materials. A design invoice does not necessarily describe the full extent of the rights received.