The iGaming industry is witnessing an unprecedented surge in innovation, but it has also become a hotbed for intellectual property (IP) disputes. With gaming technology advancing at a rapid pace and market opportunities expanding, safeguarding IP rights is now more crucial—and challenging—than ever.
This week, Playtech’s decision to conduct a covert investigation into rival company Evolution revealed the extent to which competition among game developers has intensified. As described by Joel Vertes, partner and co-head of Intellectual Property at CMS in London, the occurrence of IP disputes is on the rise: “We are seeing an upward trend in IP disputes because people see huge value in this space. There is a lot to fight over.” Vertes and his team frequently manage disputes involving developers, platforms, and entities accused of IP infringements or trade secret misappropriation. He attributes factors such as rapid market expansion and technological sophistication as driving forces. “The gaming sector as a whole has just exploded in the last 10 years,” he emphasizes.
A pivotal case illustrating the manifestation of IP disputes in this sector involves the legal battle between game developers Spribe and Aviator LLC, centered on Spribe’s acclaimed crash game Aviator. Originating in Georgia last year, the case concluded with Spribe being found guilty of registering Aviator LLC’s trademarks in bad faith. The dispute reached the UK High Court this year, where in August Spribe secured an injunction against Aviator LLC, preventing them from producing a similar crash game and using Spribe’s trademarks. Although Aviator pursued an appeal on 11 September, the application was abandoned on 8 October 2025, with the Court dismissing it and critiquing Aviator’s behavior as “petulant”.
This case underscores the robustness of UK IP rights enforcement, with proceedings continuing in other jurisdictions like the EUIPO. The UK trial is anticipated to occur in 2025 or 2026.
Interim injunctions play a crucial role in IP disputes, according to Vertes: “Even though temporary, they can be decisive. If granted, the defendant is blocked from acting and many disputes settle shortly after.” In Europe, game mechanics pose a challenge for direct protection. Vertes explains, “You’re looking at a bundle of rights. So, you’re looking at the brand, and you’re looking at underlying copyright in the source code.” The “general look and feel” of a game and registered design rights over graphical user interfaces have emerged as key areas of contention. “The work we’re doing a lot of at the moment is in design rights,” he notes, indicating that in the UK and Europe, design protection offers a new angle for dispute.
Richard Williams, an IP lawyer at Keystone Law in London, highlights the strategic importance of brand and trademark protection: “Clearance is a critical step. If you don’t check, you might be blocked from a market or subject to costly litigation.” This was evident in the Spribe and Aviator LLC dispute, where Aviator LLC’s rights to the name and logo created in 2017 were contested, resulting in Aviator being awarded $330 million in compensation this May.
Williams emphasizes that even smaller markets can wield significant influence. “This insight reveals how early trademark clearance—often overlooked—can make or break international expansion.”
In competitive markets, IP disputes are increasingly being weaponized. Vertes comments, “I don’t see any reason why you shouldn’t weaponize your IP. If you’ve filed a patent over some mechanics in a game, or you’ve registered designs over the graphic user interface, why would you not go out and enforce it?” For him, it’s about preserving brand and technology exclusivity in a competitive arena. “It’s not about squishing small companies from entering the market—they’re perfectly entitled to compete. But that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to step on others’ toes to do it.”
Across the Atlantic, the landscape is notably different due to distinct legal doctrines and litigation cultures in the US. Steven Caloiaro, an intellectual property litigator at Dickinson Wright in Reno, offers a contrasting view. Caloiaro notes that patent litigation in the US gaming sector has declined over the last decade, attributing this to key Supreme Court decisions like Bilski vs Kappos in 2010, which narrowed patent eligibility for software innovations. “Bilski made it very difficult to successfully litigate software-related patent cases,” he explains, noting the significant impact on iGaming innovations, which are often software-based.
While litigation in the established US gaming community has decreased, there’s a growing trend in “softer IP” disputes involving trademarks, trade dress, and trade secrets. A recent example is the Light & Wonder vs. Aristocrat case, where employee movement between companies raised trade secret concerns. Furthermore, non-compete enforcement has risen as companies seek to protect IP by limiting employee mobility. Caloiaro remarks, “Non-competes can serve as a workaround to protect IP.”
Fundamental distinctions exist between Europe and US IP enforcement. Caloiaro contrasts the enforcement remedies, noting, “In the UK or EU, if you win, you’ll almost certainly get an injunction. In the US, it’s not guaranteed, which can reduce the value of a win if you’re trying to keep a competitor off the market.” Moreover, damages in US courts tend to be higher, but litigation costs and risks are also greater, as each party usually bears their own legal fees.
The difference in damages is significant, Vertes explains: “US claims can be worth far more than European ones. So if you’re chasing a big monetary win, the US is [more] attractive.” He also points to the value of “design rights” in Europe, which is underutilized in the US, where trade secrets and trademarks dominate the softer IP landscape. The Aviator injunction highlights how UK courts actively protect registered trademarks and related branding.
AI’s rise complicates IP matters on both sides of the Atlantic. Although AI lowers barriers to entry, it blurs lines between inspiration and infringement. US patent offices require a human inventor, limiting AI-generated patent claims.
To navigate these complexities, proactive IP management is essential. Vertes advises companies to “choose a name, make sure you’ve cleared it, that you’re not infringing on others.” He further stresses the importance of developer communication and avoiding online scraping or copying. Caloiaro highlights the need to understand different IP types and file appropriate registrations. In today’s fiercely competitive and fast-paced iGaming market, a sophisticated IP strategy is indispensable for survival.
4.2/5
