UK Court Gives SPRIBE Edge in Aviator Copyright Case

SPRIBE secured a procedural win in its UK copyright dispute with Aviator LLC after the High Court ruled that foreign law would apply to key parts of the case instead of English law alone. Deputy Judge Michael Tappin KC issued the ruling on May 22 in the ongoing fight over ownership of the AVIATOR crash game branding and aircraft image.

The decision matters because Aviator LLC is pursuing copyright claims across several Berne Convention jurisdictions, not just the UK. The ruling means earlier Georgian court decisions will need to be assessed under the laws of the relevant countries tied to the claims, giving SPRIBE a stronger position ahead of the full trial.

Aviator LLC, a company linked to Georgian businessman Temur Ugulava, asked the court to apply English law to earlier Georgian rulings tied to the case. Judge Michael Tappin KC rejected that request and also refused a separate hearing on the ownership of the aircraft image. The court did not decide ownership of the AVIATOR branding or if SPRIBE copied it.

The case is getting more attention across the industry because AVIATOR is now one of the most used crash games in online casinos. As crash games grow across regulated markets, suppliers are putting more focus on branding and trademark control. The dispute is already moving beyond the UK, with Aviator LLC recently confirming separate legal action against Betway in South Africa over alleged use of AVIATOR branding and visual assets.

For operators, the case is starting to look bigger than one crash game. Crash games now play a major role in player acquisition and retention for many casino brands, and disputes over branding or artwork can quickly spread across several markets. Suppliers distributing the same products globally may now face more pressure to show clear ownership of trademarks, licensing rights, and branded assets used through local partnerships.

TGJ Take

This ruling gives SPRIBE more room to fight the case across multiple jurisdictions instead of dealing only with English-law interpretation. That matters in a dispute tied to one of the biggest crash game brands in online casinos. The ownership questions are still unresolved, but the court’s refusal to separate parts of the case means neither side gets a faster route to a decision. For suppliers, the longer this runs, the more pressure there will be around proving ownership of branding and visual assets tied to high-performing games.