A legal dispute surrounding the rights to the Aviator crash game has taken another turn after a UK High Court ruling handed Spribe an important procedural advantage in its ongoing conflict with Aviator LLC.

Deputy Judge Michael Tappin KC ruled on May 22 that foreign law will apply to certain elements of the copyright proceedings instead of English law. The decision affects how earlier judgments issued by Georgian courts may influence the wider case, particularly because the claims extend beyond the UK into countries covered by the Berne Convention.

The dispute centers on ownership of the aircraft image associated with Aviator-branded crash games. The title has become one of the most commercially successful online casino crash games in recent years, increasing the stakes in the legal fight.

Aviator LLC, which was established by Georgian businessman Temur Ugulava, alleges that Spribe infringed on intellectual property connected to the Aviator brand. Spribe has denied those allegations and maintains that it owns trademarks linked to its version of the game.

The company previously secured an interim injunction against Aviator LLC ahead of a full trial that is still expected to address the core copyright and ownership issues.

Judge Rejects English Law Argument

Aviator LLC argued that English law should determine whether decisions issued in Georgia could create binding issue estoppels in the UK proceedings. The company also sought to apply that interpretation to claims involving foreign copyright laws.

Tappin rejected that position and concluded that EU-derived private international law principles, which remain part of English law, require courts to consider the law of each country where copyright protection is sought.

In the ruling, the judge stated: “…a rule of law relating to preclusive effect, which states whether a party is prevented from disputing (or establishing, as the case may be) one or more elements of a cause of action for an infringement of an intellectual property right, is part of the applicable law under Articles 8 and 15.”

The decision marked a procedural victory for Spribe because it prevents the dispute from being handled solely through the lens of English law. The ruling also means Georgian court findings may need to be evaluated under the laws of the relevant jurisdictions connected to the copyright claims.

The case remains unresolved on the larger questions of ownership and infringement. The court did not decide whether Spribe copied any Aviator branding or whether Aviator LLC owns the disputed intellectual property.

Court Declines Separate Ownership Hearing

Alongside its arguments on applicable law, Aviator LLC also attempted to secure a preliminary hearing focused specifically on ownership of the Aviator image. The court refused that request.

Tappin determined that ownership questions were too closely connected to disputed factual matters and issues involving Georgian law to be separated from the broader proceedings. He wrote: “I can see no reason why ownership should be plucked out from all the other issues and decided in advance.”

The judge’s refusal means the ownership question will remain part of the full trial rather than being fast-tracked through an earlier hearing.

The broader legal confrontation has attracted attention throughout the online gaming sector because of the global popularity of crash games and the commercial value attached to the Aviator brand.

Spribe’s Aviator title has built a large international player base through its gameplay structure, where users attempt to cash out before a virtual aircraft disappears from the screen.

Aviator LLC Pursues Additional Legal Action

The London ruling arrived as Aviator LLC confirmed it had initiated separate legal proceedings against betting operator Betway in South Africa.

According to Aviator LLC, the operator used protected visual elements associated with the AVIATOR brand without authorization. The dispute reportedly began with a cease-and-desist notice before escalating into litigation.

Aviator LLC stated that it holds global copyright ownership connected to the AVIATOR logo and possesses trademarks across several African jurisdictions.

According to Next.io, CEO George Pruidze said, “Our intention in engaging with partners has never been to escalate matters into court proceedings. From the outset, our priority has been to resolve matters professionally and constructively, in a manner that protects the mutual interests of all parties involved while safeguarding the integrity of the AVIATOR brand and its intellectual property rights. Unfortunately, Betway’s response and continued actions left us with no reasonable alternative but to pursue legal action.”

Aviator LLC indicated that the South African case could lead to requests for injunctions, damages, and recovery of profits connected to the alleged use of its intellectual property.

The UK proceedings involving Spribe and Aviator LLC are expected to continue at a full trial, where the unresolved questions surrounding ownership, infringement, and branding rights will be examined in greater detail.