Key Points
- Malta’s First Hall of the Civil Court issued a provisional ex parte injunction on 1 September 2026, covering three Aviator Studio entities across the EU.
- The court cited real confusion already happening on Betsson and EuroCasino, where both games appeared simultaneously in player searches.
- Spribe must commence substantive proceedings within 31 calendar days of the order, with a UK multi-territorial injunction hearing following in October.
Malta Court Draws a Hard Line Across the EU
Two Aviator games. One search bar. Zero clarity for players. That is the picture Malta’s First Hall of the Civil Court examined before issuing its provisional injunction on 1 September 2026, and it is precisely what has pushed this dispute into a sharper phase. Spribe OÜ initiated proceedings under Malta’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Act, seeking urgent precautionary and provisional measures to prevent the alleged continued infringement of its European Union trademarks. The court issued the order on an ex parte basis, meaning Aviator Studio was not present when the ruling was made.
Three companies are now directly bound: Aviator Studio Limited, Aviator Studio Holding Limited, and Aviator Studio USA Limited, all of which must immediately cease using identical or similar signs to Spribe’s EU trademarks in relation to identical or similar products and services. The order also requires them to stop operating the Aviatorstudio website and any other site featuring a matching or similar trademark in that context.
What the Court Actually Saw in the Market?
The ruling did not arrive in a vacuum. As NEXT.io reported from the court’s findings, the two games appeared side by side when users searched for “Aviator” on Betsson and EuroCasino, and a LuckyStreak listing appeared to attribute Spribe’s game to Aviator Studios. That is not a theoretical future risk the court was guarding against; it is confusion that was already visible to players and operators before the injunction was granted.
The court’s findings cover two specific Spribe EU trademarks: a figurative mark combining the word “Aviator” with an aircraft image, and a multimedia mark covering elements of the Aviator game’s audiovisual presentation. Both were filed by Spribe in 2022 and 2023. The court found, on a prima facie basis, that Aviator Studio’s use of its Aviator branding created a likelihood of confusion with those EU trademarks. A prima facie finding is not a final verdict on ownership or merits; it is the court’s preliminary assessment that Spribe’s claim is credible enough to justify immediate action.
The MGA Licence and Why It Mattered to Urgency
One detail that has not received enough attention is what contributed to the court’s willingness to act quickly. Aviator Studio Limited had recently obtained a B2B Critical Supply Licence from the Malta Gaming Authority, which the court noted positioned the company to expand the distribution of its game across Malta and the wider EU. The court’s own assessment connected that licensing position to the urgency of the situation, noting that distribution could widen quickly across the bloc.
What the Order Does Not Decide?
Spribe founder David Natroshvili described the ruling in Spribe’s official statement as “further momentum for SPRIBE after several positive outcomes, including cancellation of the trademarks of infringers in Curacao, and the registration of our iconic logo in Kenya,” adding that the company is “continuing to take all reasonable steps to protect our creation, the Aviator game, that is enjoyed by customers in Europe and across the world.” The framing is confident, but the procedural reality is more constrained. The Malta injunction is provisional, with the Aviator Studio companies entitled to seek a review of the order. Spribe must also commence proceedings leading to a decision on the merits within 31 calendar days of the 1 September order, a deadline that sits entirely within Spribe’s hands to meet or miss. The court has not ruled on who owns the Aviator IP; it has found, preliminarily, that confusion is occurring and that the situation warrants urgent attention.
A Dispute That Looks Different Depending on Which Court You Ask
The Malta decision is a part of a multi-jurisdictional legal strategy that actually resulted in contradictory decisions. The background of the dispute stems from Georgia, where Aviator LLC claimed that Spribe has filed trademarks for Aviator in bad faith, which was confirmed by the decision of Georgia’s Court of Appeals in February 2025, saying that Spribe could have used the original Aviator logo via the Adjarabet online casino website. This decision is not formal and actually resulted in some practical consequences for Georgia even if the company challenges it on an international scale.
The UK offered a split picture. In August 2025, the High Court issued an interim injunction blocking Aviator LLC from launching or marketing a competing crash game before trial, though Aviator LLC dismissed it as commercially irrelevant, pointing out it had not applied for a UK Gambling Commission licence and could not have launched before trial anyway. Then in May 2026, a UK procedural ruling confirmed that earlier Georgian judgments cannot simply be set aside, because the claims extend across multiple Berne Convention territories. Ownership and infringement were both left for a full trial, expected in late 2026 or early 2027.
Brazil moved in a different direction. A federal court rejected Spribe’s motion for clarification in early September, leaving in place the June order that suspended the effects of Spribe’s Brazilian Aviator trademark registration, which means Spribe cannot rely on exclusivity rights under that registration while the challenge continues.
Our Analysis: Momentum Is a Story; the Merits Are Still Pending
Spribe communicates each court win as a chapter in an advancing story, and that is understandable. The Malta injunction carries real weight; a provisional EU-wide order covering a website and three corporate entities is a genuine enforcement action. What strikes us, though, is whether the industry is reading these wins with enough precision. Courts in Georgia, the UK, and Brazil have each reached different conclusions based on the specific claims and legal frameworks before them. The broader international dispute over who can ultimately enforce Aviator IP rights across all jurisdictions remains unresolved, while individual jurisdictions have already reached substantive or interim findings of their own.
What the Betsson and EuroCasino confusion evidence does establish, verifiably, is that players and operators are already navigating a market where two products compete under the same name. That is a commercial problem regardless of who wins in court. Operators approaching or already carrying Aviator Studio’s product under its new MGA B2B licence face a compliance picture that, at minimum, warrants careful legal review in the EU, given a sitting court’s finding of active market confusion. Natroshvili’s October UK hearing, where Spribe will push for a multi-territorial preliminary injunction, could extend that picture further, though whether it does remains to be seen at trial. In this dispute, the gap between provisional relief and a final answer has, so far, proven to be the most consequential space of all.
Share
3 views
