UK Court Rules in Favor of Spribe in Legal Dispute with Aviator

(AsiaGameHub) –   A significant new development has emerged in the legal dispute between crash games developer Spribe and Aviator LLC. After months of proceedings in the UK, a high court judge has ruled that specific elements of the case are contingent upon foreign law.

This outcome represents a procedural victory for Spribe.

Aviator LLC Alleges Spribe Infringed Its Intellectual Property  

Spribe and Aviator LLC have been engaged in a legal conflict for an extended period, with Aviator LLC asserting that Spribe misappropriated branding associated with Georgian entrepreneur Temur Ugulava’s Aviator LLC.

The allegation of infringement pertains to Spribe’s widely recognized Aviator crash game, in which participants must cash out before a plane departs. This straightforward yet captivating concept has resonated with millions globally, elevating the legal dispute into a significantly important confrontation.

Spribe has consistently denied the accusation of copying the Aviator branding. The company had previously obtained an interim injunction against Aviator LLC.

Judge Tappin Prevented Aviator from Isolating the Ownership Issue

On May 22, deputy judge Michael Tappin KC determined that prior rulings from Georgian courts require evaluation, given that Aviator LLC’s assertions extend beyond the UK to encompass several Berne Convention signatory nations.

This constitutes a significant triumph for Spribe, as Aviator LLC had maintained that English law ought to dictate whether previous Georgian court decisions establish binding issue estoppels. Nevertheless, the judge stated that EU laws persist as components of English law, implying that the court is obligated to adhere to the legal framework of each nation where copyright protection is sought.

Furthermore, Judge Tappin dismissed Aviator LLC’s effort to commence a preliminary hearing and expedite the ownership matter. He substantiated his ruling by noting that the issue was connected to contested facts and Georgian law, and therefore could not be separated from the overall case.

Tappin refrained from commenting on the matters of ownership and copyright infringement. These concerns are slated for evaluation during a full trial.