Spribe has landed a major procedural victory in its lengthy legal scrap with Aviator LLC over trademark and copyright claims tied to the hugely popular Aviator crash game. A UK High Court judge has ruled that the case cannot be fast-tracked under English law alone, effectively blocking Aviator LLC’s push to speed things up.

What the ruling means

Deputy Judge Michael Tappin KC handed down the decision on May 22, determining that earlier judgments from Georgian courts must be properly assessed in the dispute. For Spribe, this is a meaningful win. It rejects Aviator LLC’s core argument that English law should take precedence and settle whether previous Georgian court rulings create binding legal obligations.

The judge’s reasoning is pretty straightforward: since Aviator LLC’s claims extend beyond the UK to multiple countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention, the court must comply with the copyright laws of each jurisdiction where protection is claimed. And here’s the kicker: English law continues to recognise and incorporate EU legal principles, further strengthening Spribe’s position.

The broader context

Aviator LLC, linked to Georgian businessman Temur Ugulava, insists that Spribe pinched its branding when developing Aviator. The crash game itself is deceptively simple: players must cash out before a virtual plane flies away, taking their stake with it. Despite (or perhaps because of) those straightforward mechanics, Aviator has become a global phenomenon. The intellectual property stakes are genuinely high.

Spribe has consistently denied copying the Aviator branding and previously secured an interim injunction against its competitor. The company’s position just got stronger.

What happens next

Judge Tappin rejected Aviator LLC’s attempt to isolate the ownership and copyright infringement issues for a preliminary hearing. The complexity of disputed facts and cross-border legal considerations made that impossible. The substantive questions around who actually owns the Aviator concept and whether infringement occurred will now be determined at a full trial.

This could drag the case out further, admittedly. But it’s a procedural win that reflects well on Spribe’s legal strategy. The company’s argument that this is a multi-jurisdictional matter requiring careful assessment of foreign law has prevailed over attempts to streamline the process through English courts alone.