UK Appeal Court overturns Aviator ruling in Spribe copyright dispute

The UK Court of Appeal on 2 October 2026 unanimously quashed a High Court decision that had treated Georgian court judgments as relevant to a copyright claim brought by Aviator LLC against Spribe. The appellate court did not decide whether Spribe infringed Aviator LLC’s copyright and left the substantive ownership and infringement questions for the ongoing proceedings.

UK Court of Appeal overturns Aviator ruling and scope of the decision

The Court of Appeal’s unanimous order removes a May ruling that had given Aviator LLC an advantage by regarding prior Georgian court decisions as pertinent to Aviator’s copyright claim. That May decision also denied Aviator LLC a preliminary hearing on the narrow question of ownership before the broader case proceeds. The appeal judgment reverses those procedural outcomes but does not resolve the underlying allegation that Spribe copied the design or name used in the Aviator crash game.

The appellate judgment is tightly framed. It addresses only the procedural effect of the Georgian judgments on the UK litigation and does not adjudicate the merits of the copyright claim. The Court of Appeal expressly did not determine whether the Georgian decisions are important to the United Kingdom proceedings.

How the dispute reads in the UK case: the parties and the claims

Aviator LLC alleges that Spribe copied a distinctive game design that uses an airplane motif and the name Aviator. Spribe denies the accusation and says it developed its own graphics independently, without reference to any other company. The parties also disagree on whether their respective products and brands are similar enough to cause confusion.

The UK litigation focuses on two discreet issues that commonly arise in cross‑jurisdictional intellectual property disputes: (1) whether foreign court decisions can be used as evidence of ownership or other facts in a domestic proceeding and (2) whether any such reliance should be resolved at a preliminary hearing before trial. The Court of Appeal has sent those procedural questions back by overturning the May ruling.

Parallel outcomes in other jurisdictions and how they differ

The dispute has produced inconsistent results internationally.

• In Malta, the First Hall of the Civil Court issued a provisional ruling in Spribe’s favour, finding that Aviator Studio’s branding resembled Spribe’s European Union trademarks closely enough to create a risk of confusion.

• In Curaçao, a Court of First Instance invalidated Aviator LLC’s local trademarks; Aviator LLC did not send a representative to defend the case in Curaçao, and Spribe won by default.

Those foreign decisions played a central role in the High Court’s earlier treatment of the English proceedings; the Court of Appeal has now removed that foundation for the May ruling. The appellate court’s decision leaves open how, if at all, the Maltese and Curaçao outcomes will influence the UK trial when the substantive issues are heard.

Consequences for Spribe and Aviator LLC and next steps in the UK

With the procedural advantage removed, both parties must prepare for the main UK proceedings to decide copyright ownership and alleged copying. The appellate ruling restores Aviator LLC’s ability to seek a preliminary hearing on ownership if it wishes, because the earlier denial has been quashed.

For Spribe, the reversal removes the benefit it had under the May decision but does not alter the company’s factual defence that it created its own graphics. For Aviator LLC, the Court of Appeal’s judgment means the company must pursue its claim through the regular course of litigation rather than rely on the Georgian decisions to shortcut the process.

Legal teams should now expect the English courts to set timetables for either a preliminary ownership hearing or for the case to proceed to full trial. Evidence-gathering will need to address the provenance of designs and of the Aviator name across jurisdictions, including the differing trademark outcomes in Malta and Curaçao.

What platform operators, rights holders and vendors should watch

Operators and platform vendors that host crash-style games will watch the UK litigation for any judicial guidance on how English courts treat foreign IP judgments in tech and gaming disputes. The decision is also relevant to trademark owners and brand managers assessing enforcement strategies across multiple jurisdictions.

Registrars and rights firms will note the practical lesson: a favourable foreign ruling does not automatically translate into procedural advantage in England. Rights-holders pursuing cross-border enforcement should expect English courts to evaluate foreign decisions but to resist treating them as dispositive without full argument.

Practical points for the litigation timetable

• The Court of Appeal’s order is dated 2 October 2026 and is unanimous.

• The May High Court ruling that the Court of Appeal quashed had both regarded Georgian court decisions as relevant and denied a preliminary hearing on ownership.

• The Maltese provisional ruling favoured Spribe on likelihood of confusion with Spribe’s European Union trademarks.

• The Curaçao Court of First Instance invalidated Aviator LLC’s local trademarks after Aviator LLC failed to appear.

These facts will form the factual matrix when the English court sets the next procedural steps. Parties and their advisers will now have to decide whether to press for an early ownership ruling or to proceed immediately to trial on the full copyright and branding claims.

For coverage of gaming product disputes and IP litigation strategy in regulated markets see our reporting in regulation and analysis of product categories in casino.