Kalshi Used Gambling Terms in Broad Trademark Request

Kalshi is again facing questions about how it describes its own business. A trademark filing tied to the term “prediction market” used language linked to sports betting and gambling, even as the company continues to say it offers something different.

Good to Know

• Kalshi filed for “prediction market” in November 2025.
• The application used language tied to sports betting and gambling services.
• The USPTO rejected the filing, but approved extra time for Kalshi to try again.

Kalshi Trademark Filing Pulls Gambling Language Into View

Kalshi tried to claim trademark protection around “prediction market,” but the wording in that filing reached far beyond financial exchange and software services. According to reporting first highlighted by Sportico, the application also tied the platform to “bookmaking services, namely, providing of information related to sports betting; organizing, arranging, conducting sports betting and gambling tournaments, competitions and contests.”

That language stands out because Kalshi has long argued that its product is not sports betting in the usual sense. Instead, the company frames its business as prediction markets built around event contracts. Still, the filing appears to show that Kalshi wanted broad coverage across categories while its sports event contracts kept lifting the platform profile and user growth.

Elisabeth Diana, a spokesperson for the company, said the filing was meant to protect the category, not redefine the business. She said:

“This is particularly important as companies in adjacent categories look to expand into prediction markets.”

Diana added:

“A broader filing allows us to meaningfully protect the space and ensure that key terms are not used in ways that could blur distinctions between different products. This is not a characterization of our business as anything other than prediction markets.”

That explanation matters because trademark applicants in the United States are supposed to match classifications to the actual goods or services they offer. If that fit is off, the application can run into trouble. In Kalshi case, that is exactly where things ended up. The USPTO rejected the request, saying “prediction market” described only a feature of the services rather than functioning as a protectable mark. Kalshi then asked for another three months to respond, and that extension was approved on March 3.