Working with IT businesses, it is evident how significantly the approach to intellectual property has evolved. The new generation of founders typically understands from the outset that a brand, product name, and the rights associated with them form part of the company’s future business architecture rather than a mere formality — not simply “register it, secure it, and move on.”
As a result, trademarks are increasingly registered at an early stage, often before active market entry. From a legal perspective, this trend is encouraging, as it reflects a growing level of IP awareness within the IT industry.
At the same time, even with such a conscious approach, another practical issue arises — a lack of understanding of how these intellectual property assets will function in the future.
The mere registration of an IP object (whether a trademark or copyright) does not answer critical questions regarding what happens to the project during scaling, expansion into foreign markets, investor onboarding, or in the event of infringement — whether committed by or against the business.
It is at this point that the quality of the initial IP architecture becomes evident. Businesses frequently encounter legal constraints and risks that were not apparent at the outset — issues that become particularly acute during growth.
In practice, working with a trademark rarely ends with filing an application. If a brand is viewed as a strategic asset, at least two distinct levels of legal planning are involved — levels that businesses often fail to differentiate.
This stage goes beyond clearance searches and conflict checks. It involves planning the brand architecture with regard to the project’s anticipated development.
Limitations embedded at this stage — such as inappropriate class selection, jurisdictional gaps, or ownership structuring — often create obstacles once the business expands.
Once the registration certificate is obtained, substantive work with the brand effectively begins.
For IT projects, this requires advance planning of who will use the trademark and under what legal grounds: different companies within a corporate group, affiliates, partners, marketing agencies, or legal representatives.
This issue carries not only legal but also significant economic implications. A trademark constitutes an intangible asset frequently used within corporate structures, capable of generating royalty streams and influencing tax models.
If a coherent trademark use policy is not developed at the outset, the business may either lose operational flexibility or face additional legal and tax risks at the scaling stage.
Importantly, trademark protection issues rarely arise immediately. They typically become visible when a company begins expanding into new markets, broadening its product line, or initiating active enforcement. At that moment, it may transpire that while the trademark formally exists, it does not function as an effective enforcement tool in the scenarios for which it was intended.
In the gambling sector, a brand is almost never limited to a name or logo. Characters, visual identities, game design elements, and overall product aesthetics collectively shape brand recognition and effectively operate as extensions of the trademark.
For this reason, copyright issues in this sector quickly transform into trademark protection risks.
In practice, businesses often perceive such elements merely as “part of the game,” without legally segregating them. A character may be created by a designer or external studio and subsequently used extensively in gameplay, marketing, and advertising, while copyright ownership is either not properly regulated or addressed only formally.
This may not cause difficulties until the brand begins scaling or entering new jurisdictions.
At that stage, it may become apparent that a visual element that effectively embodies the brand is not fully controlled by the company from a legal standpoint. This significantly weakens the company’s position in disputes, complicates enforcement against competitors, and creates additional risks in relationships with partners or digital platforms.
Formally, the trademark exists — but the core visual asset associated with it in the market may remain legally vulnerable.
Based on our experience, this is one of the most underestimated risks in the gambling industry. Copyright is often treated as secondary until it becomes clear that, without properly secured rights to visual elements, the brand loses part of its legal defensibility.
In modern IT business, trademark infringement is increasingly less about direct copying of a name or logo — although unauthorized use of third-party trademarks in domain names, websites, or digital platforms remains a common method of leveraging established brand reputation.
More frequently, however, brand attacks take an indirect form — through the creation of a negative informational background. Telegram channels, online publications, pseudo-analytical reports, or targeted information campaigns can directly affect market perception of a trademark.
Combating such attacks rarely involves a single legal instrument or rapid solution. The response must be multi-layered and, critically, timely.
The first step involves documenting the infringement and halting further dissemination. At this stage, pre-trial mechanisms are often effective: formal legal notices to platform administrators, hosting providers, editorial offices, and domain owners demanding cessation of infringement or retraction of false information.
If pre-trial remedies prove ineffective or the attack is systemic, protection moves into the litigation phase. This may involve not only cessation of infringement but also protection of business reputation and claims for compensation for non-pecuniary (moral) damage caused by the dissemination of false information.
However, businesses frequently expect immediate results, whereas judicial proceedings require time, evidentiary support, and a well-structured litigation strategy.
In my view, the most significant issue in addressing such attacks is delayed response. When a brand ignores sustained informational pressure, the damage accumulates and becomes systemic.
Therefore, a comprehensive trademark protection strategy must encompass not only formal legal safeguards but also readiness to act swiftly within the informational space, combining pre-trial and judicial instruments. Without such an approach, even properly registered trademark rights may fail to deliver the expected level of protection.