UK High Court Extends Interim Protection to Spribe in ‘Aviator’ Game Dispute

London, UK, The UK High Court has extended interim protection for game developer Spribe in its dispute with companies behind a rival game also named ‘Aviator’, based on the likelihood of customer confusion and diversion of players from Spribe’s established title.

What Happened

The UK High Court has issued an order extending interim protection for Spribe, the developer of the ‘Aviator Crash Game’. This decision comes amidst a dispute with two Georgian companies, both named Aviator LLC, and Malta-based Aviator Studios companies, which operate a rival game also called ‘Aviator’. The order, published on Monday, restricts the rival game’s availability on additional platforms in Colombia, Serbia, and Romania while the case proceeds. Furthermore, both Aviator parties must provide Spribe with advance notice before launching their game in Canada or Italy, allowing Spribe time to seek legal protection in those territories. This interim injunction is a temporary measure that does not determine the full extent of infringement but aims to mitigate immediate harm.

Key Details

• The High Court’s decision was based on the judge’s assessment that two crash games using the name ‘Aviator’ and ‘very similar logos’ were ‘very likely’ to confuse customers and potentially divert them from Spribe.
• Spribe alleges that the rival title, launched in March 2025, copies its ‘Aviator Crash Game’, which debuted in Georgia in 2019 and expanded to the UK by 2021, with copyright sought in the same year.
• The interim order prevents Aviator LLC and Aviator Studios from making their game available on new platforms in Colombia, Serbia, and Romania.
• Advance notice is required from the Aviator parties before launching in Canada or Italy, enabling Spribe to seek legal protection.
• The ruling allows Spribe to pursue international claims concerning South Africa, Kenya, Mexico, Canada, Italy, Colombia, Ghana, Romania, and Serbia within the existing UK proceedings, streamlining the legal process.
• The judge also permitted Spribe to add counterclaims based on ‘passing off’ and ‘unfair competition’, indicating a desire for the case to proceed to trial quickly due to the alleged risk of consumer confusion.
• A previous injunction covering the UK was issued by the High Court, and Maltese courts have granted an order covering EU countries.

Why It Matters

This ruling is significant as it provides crucial interim protection for Spribe’s brand and player base against what it describes as a ‘copycat’ game, reinforcing the importance of protecting intellectual property in the rapidly evolving online gaming industry. By restricting the rival game’s expansion and requiring advance notice in key markets, the court aims to prevent further market confusion and potential diversion of players. The ability for Spribe to consolidate international claims within the UK proceedings, rather than initiating separate legal battles in multiple jurisdictions, offers a more efficient and cost-effective path to resolving the dispute. This case highlights the challenges companies face in protecting their intellectual property and brand reputation when faced with potentially confusingly similar offerings, especially in a global digital marketplace. The judge’s emphasis on consumer confusion and ‘honest commercial practices’ underscores the court’s commitment to fair competition and protecting consumers from misleading associations.