UK Court of Appeal overturns High Court ruling in Spribe–Aviator dispute

The UK Court of Appeal on 2 October overturned the High Court decision that had favoured Spribe in a preliminary procedure in the Spribe Aviator dispute. The unanimous ruling set aside a May decision that had given weight to prior judgments from Georgia; it does not decide whether Spribe infringed Aviator LLC’s copyright nor does it determine the relevance of the Georgian decisions to the substantive claim.

Procedural background of the Spribe Aviator dispute

The dispute pits Aviator LLC against Spribe and centres on the design and name of the crash‑style game known as Aviator. Aviator LLC alleges that Spribe copied its distinctive design, which the claimant says includes an aeroplane and the name "Aviator". Spribe denies those allegations and says it developed its own graphics without reference to any other company. The parties also disagree on the degree of similarity between their products and their trademarks.

The UK proceedings took a procedural turn when, in May, a first‑instance court held that decisions issued in Georgia could be relevant to Aviator LLC’s claim and refused a preliminary hearing on ownership. That May ruling produced a procedural advantage for Spribe. The Court of Appeal has now set that stance aside.

What the 2 October overturn affects

The overturn does not decide the substantive dispute. The Court of Appeal removed the procedural effect of the May decision; that means Aviator LLC regains the ability to seek a preliminary hearing on the question of who owns the work in dispute before the main trial proceeds. The appellate court explicitly did not rule on whether Spribe infringed copyright nor on how much weight the Georgian courts’ decisions should have in assessing Aviator LLC’s claims.

Accordingly, the UK litigation continues in a phase where the intellectual property ownership issue and the relevance of foreign decisions must be resolved in subsequent procedural stages. The appeal decision alters the timetable and evidence sequencing, but it does not produce a substantive judgment.

Different outcomes in Malta and Curaçao

The same parties produced differing rulings in other jurisdictions. In Malta, the First Hall of the Civil Court issued an interim order in favour of Spribe, finding that Aviator Studio’s branding sufficiently resembled Spribe’s European Union trademarks to create a risk of confusion. That provisional decision favoured Spribe in the EU market.

In Curaçao, the Court of First Instance declared Aviator LLC’s local trademarks invalid. The claimant did not send a representative to defend the action before that court, so Spribe won by default. These outcomes show that, outside the UK, judicial authorities have adopted different assessments of trademarks and the risk of confusion between the disputed signs.

Practical implications for operators and rights‑holders

The Court of Appeal’s overturn leaves several operational questions open. First, ownership and originality of the game design will need to be determined through further evidence and hearings in the UK. Second, the conflicting decisions in Malta and Curaçao mean trademark protection and the risk of confusion can vary significantly by territory where the dispute is raised.

For operators and B2B suppliers who licence games or manage international catalogues, this means that the validity of brands and graphic assets can pose different risks by market. The Court of Appeal’s ruling changes procedure in the UK but does not harmonise the existing international decisions that are for or against Spribe.

Next procedural steps after the appeal

With the overturn, Aviator LLC now has scope to request preliminary hearings on ownership before the substantive trial fully advances in the UK. The Court of Appeal did not fix a decision on the material facts or set dates for those hearings; it referred the matter back to the lower courts to reorganise the procedure consistent with the new ruling.

The outcome also allows the parties to reassess strategy in each jurisdiction. Aviator LLC and Spribe will need to coordinate different evidence and arguments in the UK, Malta and Curaçao, where divergent rulings already exist.

"The Court of Appeal’s decision removes the prior consideration of the Georgian judgments but does not decide on the copyright infringement," the unanimous judgment states.

The UK ruling keeps the dispute active and awaiting further procedural milestones. Any final determination on ownership and potential infringement will depend on future hearings and the evidential assessment ordered by the competent courts.

What investors and licensees should watch

Investors and licensees should monitor three specific matters:

1. the scheduling of preliminary hearings in the UK on ownership;

2. possible interim measures or administrative decisions in markets where the trademarks are registered; and

3. the development of conflicting rulings across jurisdictions, which may affect commercial exploitation of the product in each territory.

For readers interested in regulation and trademark litigation in gaming, this dispute illustrates how international lawsuits can produce different results and reshape commercial strategy without immediately resolving the underlying conflict.

Gonzalo Marín, Sector operations correspondent.