Operators entering newly regulated gambling markets expect to navigate licensing fees, technical certifications, AML requirements and local incorporation rules. What many have not historically anticipated is the need to factor trade mark registration into the regulatory timetable.

Over the past 18 months, a discernible trend has emerged in regions opening up or overhauling their gambling frameworks with requirements that tie brand registration directly to market access. For brand owners and their IP advisers, this represents a shift: trade mark strategy is no longer a downstream exercise to be addressed once regulatory authorisation is in hand. In certain jurisdictions, it is becoming part of the licensing strategy itself.

The link between trade marks and licensing manifests in three ways:

1. Trade mark registration as a licensing prerequisite: the operator must produce evidence of a registered mark, or equivalent brand ownership documentation, as part of the licence application or approval process. Nigeria is the clearest example.
2. Trade mark registration as a post-licence condition: the operator may obtain the gambling licence first, but must then submit evidence of trade mark registration within a prescribed period. Kenya has now adopted this model.
3. Declaration-based lawfulness as a filing gateway: rather than directly linking trade mark registration with the gambling license, some IP offices may instead accept a simple declaration from the applicant that the underlying activity is carried out lawfully, with only limited scope for the examiner to look behind that declaration. Brazil has adopted this model, but timing nonetheless remains critical in a first-to-file jurisdiction undergoing regulatory liberalisation.

Nigeria provides perhaps the clearest example of a direct link between brand registration and gambling licensing.

The relevant sports betting permit requirements expressly require evidence of trade mark registration with the Federal Ministry of Trade and Investment. Applicants must also register a .ng domain. There is little ambiguity here: the operator is expected to evidence ownership of the brand under which it proposes to operate.

The requirement sits alongside other licensing conditions, including licence fees, technical infrastructure certification and AML/KYC compliance. Its significance is that brand ownership documentation is treated as part of regulatory fitness, rather than as a separate IP housekeeping matter.

There is, however, an important overlay. Following the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision on lottery and gaming regulation (Suit No. SC/1/2008), Nigeria is shifting towards state-level regulation outside the Federal Capital Territory and the position is not consistent across states. By way of example, the Federal Capital Territory (via the FCT Lottery Regulatory Office, FCT-LRO) and Lagos State (via the Lagos State Lotteries and Gaming Authority) continue to require evidence of trade mark registration as part of the licensing process. In contrast, some states such as Cross River do not expressly list trade mark registration as a requirement, but it remains advisable to provide such evidence as part of any application.

Operators should therefore monitor emerging state requirements. But the broader point remains: Nigeria has already adopted the logic that a gambling operator seeking market access may be required to prove ownership or control of its operating brand.

Status: In force under the relevant federal/FCT-facing framework, but subject to an evolving state-level regulatory landscape following the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision.

On 30 June 2026, Kenya’s Gambling Regulatory Authority gazetted six Regulations under the Gambling Control Act 2025, including the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations 2026, the Gambling Control (Conduct of Gambling Operations) Regulations 2026, the Gambling Control (Advertising) Regulations 2026 and the Gambling Control (Foreign-Facing Operators) Regulations 2026.

By notice dated 3 July 2026, the GRA confirmed the commencement of the first licensing cycle under the new regime, with a 60-day transitional window for holders of licences issued under the repealed law to apply for the appropriate licence under the new Regulations.

The new framework significantly expands the scope of gambling regulation in Kenya. B2B providers, including gambling software or platform providers, equipment testing providers and equipment servicing or repair providers, are now brought within the licensing regime. Operators must also obtain licences for individual online games within their product offering, ensure those games are certified by recognised international testing laboratories, license relevant gambling equipment and secure accreditation for key gambling employees, including directors and shareholders.

For trade mark practitioners, the key development is that operators are now required to register a trade mark for the name under which the gambling business is operated, with the certificate of registration to be submitted to the GRA within 30 days of the licence being granted (under Regulation 29 of the Gambling Control (Licensing) Regulations 2026).  However, while Regulation 29 is couched in mandatory terms, the Regulations do not appear to specify an express consequence for non-compliance with this provision. Nevertheless, it is potentially open to argument that a failure to submit the trade mark registration certificate could expose the licence to cancellation on the grounds of non-compliance.

Kenya is therefore not quite the same as Nigeria. The trade mark certificate does not appear to be an upfront gateway to making the licence application. It is a post-grant obligation. But in practical terms, the distinction may be narrow. If a certificate must be produced within 30 days of licence grant, operators cannot sensibly wait until after licensing to begin the trade mark process. Filing at KIPI needs to be built into the market-entry timetable from the outset.

Status: In force. The new Regulations were gazetted on 30 June 2026, with a 60-day transitional window for existing operators and a confirmed requirement to submit trade mark registration evidence shortly after licence grant.

Brazil’s regulated online betting market went live on 1 January 2025, underpinned by Law No. 14,790/2023 and implementing ordinances from the Secretariat of Prizes and Betting (SPA) of the Ministry of Finance. Each federal licence is valid for five years, permits up to three commercial brands per authorisation, and requires use of a .bet.br domain.

Brazil is not a jurisdiction where a gambling licence must be in hand before a trade mark application can be filed. Brazil’s trade mark office, INPI, is operating under updated guidance confirming that applications covering sports betting services can proceed on the strength of a simple declaration by the applicant that it is lawfully engaged in the activities covered by the trade mark application in question. That declaration route is also open to foreign applicants, provided they state that they operate through a Brazilian company under their control.

INPI will only query the declaration where there is good reason to doubt it, although failure to supply the requisite information does not result in the refusal of the trade mark, but merely the shelving of the application.

The specification should refer to “sports betting” rather than betting generally, and gambling or casino-style terms remain problematic, as those activities sit outside the regime created by Law No. 14,790/2023.

The domain point is a separate but related requirement. Only licensed operators may use the mandatory .bet.br domain, and it is tied to the authorised brand, so trade mark, domain and licensing strategies need to be planned together rather than in sequence. Trade mark eligibility and commercial use therefore remain distinct: a filed or registered mark does not, on its own, confer the right to operate under the .bet.br domain, for which a licence is required.

Because Brazil operates on a first-to-file basis, the practical risk for operators is timing rather than eligibility. As the market has opened up, brand owners face a real risk of third-party or opportunistic filings in the gap before their own application is made, so filing early remains the priority.

Status: In force since 1 January 2025, with INPI’s updated approach to sports betting specifications confirmed in August 2025. 

Operators and brand owners should be thinking about the following:

• File early, file now. In first-to-file or registration-led jurisdictions, the window between regulatory announcement and market launch is precisely when squatters are most active. Defensive filings should be considered as soon as a jurisdiction signals liberalisation or regulatory overhaul, not once the implementing regulations are fully settled.
• Align entity structure with IP ownership. Many licensing regimes require local incorporation, local registration or local ownership thresholds. Trade mark applications should be filed in the name of the entity that will hold the licence, or supported by appropriate intra-group licence arrangements, to avoid mismatches that could delay or complicate regulatory approval. In Brazil, foreign applicants relying on the declaration route should take particular care that the declaration correctly identifies the Brazilian operating entity through which they conduct the activity, given that entity’s control is central to the validity of the declaration.
• Coordinate marks and domains. Brazil mandates .bet.br domains; Nigeria requires .ng domains; Kenya now requires trade mark registration for the gambling business name. Domain registration, trade mark filing and licensing should be handled as a single market-entry workstream.
• Activate watch services. Regulatory liberalisation creates a predictable spike in brand activity. Operators should monitor filings in Brazil, Nigeria and Kenya, and be prepared to act quickly against conflicting applications or opportunistic filings.
• Build IP timing into the licensing timetable. In Nigeria, absence of trade mark evidence may delay the licensing process. In Kenya, a 30-day post-grant deadline may be impossible to meet if no filing has been made. In Brazil, timing is driven by first-to-file risk rather than licensing sequencing, so filing early remains important even though a licence is not a precondition to filing. In each case, IP timing matters.

It is too early to say that gambling regulation is moving wholesale towards a “no trade mark, no licence” model. Mature markets such as the UK, Malta and Gibraltar do not impose equivalent requirements, and there is no indication that they intend to.

But in the cohort of jurisdictions that are regulating online gambling for the first time, or substantially overhauling legacy gambling laws, the logic is clear. Regulators and IP offices alike want assurance that operators are legitimate, identifiable businesses with a genuine stake in the market. In Kenya and Nigeria, a registered trade mark is a simple, verifiable proxy for that legitimacy. Whilst Brazil currently takes a light-touch approach, the direction of travel is the same: brand ownership and regulatory standing are becoming increasingly intertwined.

For the gambling industry’s IP teams, the message is straightforward. Market access strategy and brand protection strategy are converging. Trade mark filings are no longer something to tidy up after launch. In some markets, they are becoming part of the price of entry.