Aviator LLC responds after Spribe grounds rival in UK IP battle ahead of trial

Summary

The UK High Court has granted an interim injunction preventing Aviator LLC from launching a competing “Aviator” crash game in the UK while an IP dispute with Spribe proceeds to trial, expected in late 2026 or early 2027. The dispute began in Georgia and has since spilled into other jurisdictions, with both sides pursuing legal action and public statements.

Spribe says it created the Aviator game in 2018 and is the global owner of the IP, arguing the rival product would be a copycat that risks reputational and financial harm. Aviator LLC counters that it was not planning a UK launch imminently, has no UK Gambling Commission licence application in place, and stresses that interim injunctions in the UK routinely require the claimant to give a compensation undertaking if the injunction is wrongly granted.

Source

Source: https://igamingbusiness.com/legal-compliance/legal/spribe-aviator-uk-injunction-court/

Key Points

• The UK High Court issued an interim injunction on 31 July blocking Aviator LLC from launching a competing crash game in the UK ahead of a full trial.
• Trial is expected to begin in late 2026 or early 2027 and may last several weeks.
• Spribe claims it created the Aviator crash game in 2018 and asserts sole global ownership of the IP; it says the injunction protects its brand and partners.
• Aviator LLC says it was not planning an immediate UK launch, has no Gambling Commission licence application yet, and says the injunction may be commercially irrelevant if a licence would not be processed before trial.
• The judge required Spribe to give an undertaking to compensate if the injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted — a common UK civil safeguard.
• Judge Anthony Mann (interim order) was satisfied the injunction adequately protects Spribe pending fuller arguments at trial; a full written judgement is expected to be published soon.
• The wider dispute began in Georgia, where a First Instance decision awarded €330m to a claimant and invalidated certain trademark registrations; the case has since involved settlements and additional proceedings in other markets.

Why should I read this?

If you work in iGaming — whether you’re a supplier, operator, regulator or legal bod — this one matters. It’s about who gets to sell a hugely popular crash game in big markets, how IP fights can gatekeep product launches, and how licensing timelines can make interim rulings practically decisive. Short version: it affects market access, brand risk and commercial strategy. Worth five minutes.

Author style

Punchy: this case is a litmus test for IP enforcement in the sector. Read the detail if you care about platform distribution, brand protection or the knock-on effects of cross-jurisdictional legal battles — it’s not just courtroom theatre, it shapes commercial playbooks.