By Anna Giambelluca, Esq., Legal Editor
A legal battle over one of online gaming’s most successful products took another turn this month after a UK court handed gaming developer Spribe a procedural victory in an ongoing intellectual property dispute involving the Aviator crash game.
For those unfamiliar with the industry, Aviator is one of the most popular “crash games” in online gaming. The game features a virtual airplane and a continuously increasing multiplier. Players must decide when to cash out before the aircraft disappears from the screen. Once the aircraft vanishes, the round ends and any players who have not already cashed out lose their wager. The simple format has attracted a large global player base and helped transform Aviator into one of the most recognizable brands in the online gaming market.
As the game’s popularity has grown, a legal dispute has emerged between two companies, each claiming rights to the Aviator name and imagery.
Spribe is the company behind the widely distributed Aviator crash game that appears on numerous online gaming platforms around the world. Aviator LLC, a company founded by Georgian businessman Temur Ugulava, alleges that it owns intellectual property associated with the Aviator brand, including the aircraft image used in connection with the game. Spribe disputes those claims and maintains that it owns trademarks associated with its version of Aviator. The commercial success of Aviator has also increased the value of the intellectual property associated with the brand, raising the stakes of the parties’ competing ownership claims.
On May 22, 2026, the High Court of England and Wales was presented with a narrow legal question: what law should apply to certain copyright claims in the case? The court did not address ownership of the Aviator intellectual property or whether infringement occurred.
The parties disagreed over what law should govern certain aspects of the copyright claims. Aviator LLC argued that English law should apply, while Spribe contended that courts should instead look to the laws of the countries where copyright protection is being sought. Deputy Judge Michael Tappin KC ultimately rejected Aviator LLC’s position.
Although the issue may seem highly technical, it could have important implications as the case moves forward. Copyright rights are territorial, meaning they exist on a country-by-country basis. As a result, disputes involving global brands often require courts to navigate multiple legal systems rather than applying a single set of rules across every claim.
The ruling was viewed as a procedural win for Spribe, as the court declined to analyze the claims exclusively through English law. Instead, the decision requires a broader analysis of the copyright claims based on the laws of the jurisdictions where protection is being sought.
The court also rejected a separate request from Aviator LLC to hold an early hearing focused solely on ownership of the disputed aircraft image. Aviator LLC sought to resolve that issue before the remainder of the case proceeded.
Tappin declined to do so, finding that ownership questions were too closely tied to disputed facts and issues of Georgian law to be separated from the broader proceedings. In the ruling, he wrote that he could see “no reason why ownership should be plucked out from all the other issues and decided in advance.”
As a result, ownership of the image will remain part of the full trial rather than being addressed through a preliminary hearing.
The dispute has also expanded beyond the United Kingdom. Around the same time as the London ruling, Aviator LLC announced that it had initiated separate legal proceedings against betting operator Betway in South Africa. According to Aviator LLC, the operator used protected AVIATOR branding and visual elements without authorization. The company has indicated that the matter could involve requests for injunctions, damages, and recovery of profits.
For now, the central questions remain unresolved. The court has not yet determined who owns the disputed intellectual property, whether infringement occurred, or whether either party is entitled to damages. Those issues are expected to be addressed at a future trial.
While Spribe prevailed on this procedural issue, the central questions surrounding ownership of the Aviator brand remain unresolved and will ultimately be decided at trial.
