Georgia Supreme Court backs Aviator in Spribe trademark case

In a decisive legal victory for the creators of the popular crash-style game Aviator, the Supreme Court of Georgia has ruled against Spribe in a high-profile trademark dispute. The ruling, delivered on 20 May 2025, marks the culmination of a lengthy legal battle over the rights to the Aviator name and associated branding. The court upheld prior decisions invalidating Spribe’s trademarks on the grounds that they were registered in bad faith and infringed upon Aviator’s original copyright.

This judgment finalizes the matter in Georgia, the jurisdiction where Aviator originated, and is likely to influence related proceedings in other countries, particularly within the European Union.

Background of the dispute

The dispute centers on the intellectual property rights associated with the Aviator game, a widely recognized online casino product that uses airplane imagery and a unique “crash” mechanic to engage users. The game has achieved substantial commercial success, prompting several companies, including Spribe, to introduce similar games using the same or closely related branding.

Spribe, a software developer known for its involvement in the online gaming sector, had registered Aviator-related trademarks in multiple jurisdictions, including Georgia. Aviator, the original developer and IP owner based in Georgia, challenged those registrations, alleging that Spribe’s trademarks were not only unauthorized but also deliberately intended to mislead and exploit the market recognition built by Aviator.

Initial court rulings and damages awarded

In August 2024, a Georgian Court of First Instance found in favor of Aviator and awarded the company a substantial judgment of $330 million in damages. That ruling also required the immediate invalidation of the disputed trademarks and ordered Adjarabet, a local operator owned by Flutter Entertainment and previously using Spribe’s version of Aviator, to stop using the contested branding.

Although Adjarabet and Aviator subsequently reached an undisclosed settlement earlier this year, the larger issue of trademark ownership and use remained unresolved as Spribe pursued an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court confirms bad faith trademark registration

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling reaffirms the lower court’s finding that Spribe acted in bad faith when registering the Aviator trademarks. Legal filings and remarks from Aviator’s legal representatives indicate that the court identified substantial evidence showing Spribe had breached both trademark regulations and copyright protection laws.

In legal terms, registering a trademark in bad faith often refers to circumstances where an applicant seeks to register a mark that is identical or similar to an existing and well-known brand, without legitimate ownership or licensing rights. This practice is commonly seen as an abuse of the trademark registration process and is routinely challenged in courts worldwide.

Broader implications for international trademark enforcement

While the Supreme Court ruling resolves the dispute within Georgia, its implications are expected to resonate internationally. A spokesperson for Aviator indicated that the decision provides a critical legal precedent that will support ongoing efforts to challenge Spribe’s trademark registrations in other jurisdictions, particularly before the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

Proceedings before the EUIPO remain active. According to available records, Spribe has sought multiple extensions to respond to Aviator’s filings, which include allegations of unauthorized use of the Aviator name, logos, and visual identity across European markets.

The ruling from Georgia may now be used by Aviator’s legal team to strengthen its arguments in these forums, demonstrating a clear pattern of conduct and establishing Aviator as the original and rightful owner of the brand.

Statement from Aviator and legal counsel

In an official statement, Aviator expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision, describing it as a “landmark affirmation of our intellectual property rights in our home jurisdiction.” The company reaffirmed its commitment to protecting its brand and game design from unauthorized use and emphasized its intention to pursue enforcement actions wherever infringement occurs.

Aviator is represented in these proceedings by the Tbilisi-based law firm Mikadze Gegetchkori Taktakishvili, which has acted on its behalf throughout the Georgian litigation process. The firm released a separate statement applauding the judgment as a strong endorsement of fair competition and respect for intellectual property laws.

Spribe’s position and ongoing legal challenges

As of this writing, Spribe has not issued a public statement in response to the Supreme Court decision. However, the company remains involved in multiple legal challenges relating to its use of the Aviator brand in jurisdictions outside of Georgia.

Spribe’s argument throughout the dispute has centered on claims that its version of Aviator is a distinct product and that its use of the name falls within permissible bounds of competition. However, such claims have been consistently rejected by Georgian courts.

Industry observers note that Spribe may face increasing difficulty defending its trademark registrations as similar cases are reviewed in other territories. The precedent set by Georgia's highest court could lead other jurisdictions to conclude that Spribe’s trademarks lack legitimacy due to their origins and intended use.

Legal and regulatory landscape

This case highlights a growing trend in the global iGaming and software development industries, where rapid innovation and commercial success often lead to complex intellectual property disputes. As more gaming titles gain traction across international markets, the legal frameworks for protecting branding, game mechanics, and proprietary imagery are being tested.

For developers like Aviator, early registration of IP rights and proactive enforcement are key to maintaining competitive advantage and brand integrity. The outcome of this dispute underscores the importance of international coordination among legal teams and the critical role of judicial systems in upholding legitimate ownership claims.

Future steps for Aviator

Aviator has confirmed its intention to continue pressing its case before the EUIPO and other relevant intellectual property bodies. With the Georgian decision in hand, the company believes it is well-positioned to secure favorable outcomes in other jurisdictions.

Moreover, Aviator has indicated that it is evaluating potential civil remedies and additional enforcement actions against any remaining unauthorized operators that continue to use its branding or similar variants without permission.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing battle over the Aviator brand. By rejecting Spribe’s appeal and upholding the invalidation of its trademarks, the court has reaffirmed the principles of fair competition and lawful IP registration.

While the case may be closed in Georgia, its influence is likely to extend far beyond national borders. For Aviator, the ruling not only secures its position at home but also strengthens its hand as it challenges alleged infringements around the world.

FAQs

What was the core issue in the dispute between Aviator and Spribe?
The core issue was the unauthorized registration and use of the Aviator trademark and imagery by Spribe, which Aviator claimed infringed on its intellectual property rights.

What did the Supreme Court of Georgia decide?
The court upheld the invalidation of Spribe’s trademarks, finding they were registered in bad faith and infringed upon Aviator’s copyrights.

What does “registered in bad faith” mean in trademark law?
It means a party knowingly applied for a trademark similar to an existing brand, intending to benefit from its reputation or mislead consumers.

Who owns the Aviator game?
The original Aviator game and its intellectual property are owned by a Georgian-based company referred to simply as Aviator in public records.

Did Adjarabet have any involvement in the case?
Yes, Adjarabet used Spribe’s Aviator branding but later reached a private settlement with Aviator after the initial court ruling.

How much was awarded in damages to Aviator?
Aviator was awarded $330 million in damages by the Court of First Instance in Georgia in August 2024.

Is this the final legal decision in the case?
In Georgia, yes. The Supreme Court’s ruling concludes the case domestically, but international proceedings are still ongoing.

Are there ongoing legal proceedings in other countries?
Yes, Aviator is pursuing related trademark invalidation efforts in jurisdictions like the European Union via the EUIPO.

Will this decision influence EUIPO proceedings?
It is expected to influence EUIPO and similar cases, as the ruling establishes Aviator’s legal standing and supports claims of bad-faith registration.

What law firm represents Aviator?
Aviator is represented by the Georgian law firm Mikadze Gegetchkori Taktakishvili.