The Tale of Two Stakes: Stake.com vs. Stake Embroiled in Australian Lawsuit

Posted on: August 18, 2023, 03:31h. 

Last updated on: August 18, 2023, 12:27h.

Erik Gibbs Read More
Expertise: Asia Pacific Gaming, Gaming Business, Global Gaming.

In a new legal battle that’s caught the attention of the gaming and financial industries, the online gaming platform Stake.com is facing a copyright infringement lawsuit in Austraia from the shares trading platform Stake. The lawsuit, filed in the Federal Court of Australia, alleges that Stake.com’s name and branding could cause confusion and dilution of the shares trading platform’s brand.

Stake.com founders Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani at the offices of EasyGo Gaming
Stake.com founders Ed Craven and Bijan Tehrani at the offices of their EasyGo Gaming. Stake.com faces a lawsuit in Australia over its name, shared by financial services company Stake. (Image: The Sydney Morning Herald)

Stake.com, the Curaçao-licensed platform known for its online gambling and betting activities — and its penchant for cryptocurrency betting — recently decided it wanted to step into the Australian gambling space. It has gained significant traction among gamers and bettors around the world, and its own backyard seemed to be the logical next step.

However, the lawsuit filed by Stake, the shares trading platform out of Bondi Junction in Sydney, claims that the similarity in names is going to be an issue, according to the Australian Associated Press. Since both companies were founded in 2017, figuring out which side will win the battle deserves tight odds.

Stake vs. Stake

Stake, the trading platform, provides users with the ability to invest in various stocks and securities. The platform has gained recognition for its user-friendly interface and accessibility. It focuses mostly on brokerage activity in Australia, New Zealand, Brazil, and the UK, according to its website, hellostake.com.

With a growing customer base, and as “one of Australia’s fastest-growing companies,” it believes that the similarity in names with Stake.com could negatively impact its brand reputation. In addition, it may cause unwarranted confusion among users.

Legal representatives for Stake, the shares trading platform, argue that the online gaming platform’s branding could potentially lead consumers to believe that both entities are affiliated or connected in some way, despite their distinct offerings. The lawsuit alleges that Stake.com’s use of the name could tarnish the reputation Stake has built in the financial sector.

The trading platform alleges that Stake.com has “false and misleading” statements on its suite of websites that might confuse consumers. It highlights the gaming platform’s eCommerce site, which sells merchandise labeled “Stake,” not “Stake.com.”

Legal experts note that cases of trademark infringement involving similar names across different industries aren’t uncommon. The outcome of such cases often hinges on factors such as the level of similarity between the names, the degree of overlap in services, and the potential for consumer confusion.

Not in Oz

The lawsuit wants the courts to prohibit Stake.com from using its name in Australia. While it’s not uncommon for gaming companies to have multiple brands, approval of the suit might have serious ramifications for the platform.

Stake.com has several high-profile sponsorship deals, including one it picked up with the Alfa Romeo Formula One racing team through its streaming platform Kick. That allowed the brand to appear at the Melbourne Grand Prix. But any future appearances could raise red flags if the lawsuit holds up.

Stake.com should be able to afford to defend itself against the suits, provided it practices smart money management and isn’t into whimsical spending. Recent data from strategic advisory firm Regulus Partners indicates its gross revenue last year was around $2.3 billion. This puts it ahead of DraftKings, 888 Holdings, and others.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the courts will play a crucial role in determining whether Stake.com’s branding indeed constitutes copyright infringement. It’s already won one massive lawsuit, a $580M legal claim by a former partner, and might gamble on getting lucky once again.