The Court of Appeal in London handed down judgment on 2 October 2026 in Aviator LLC and others v Spribe OÜ, the copyright dispute over the artwork of the Aviator crash game. The court allowed the appeal brought by Aviator LLC and reversed a High Court decision from May. The ruling settles a procedural question about earlier court decisions in Georgia. It does not decide whether Spribe copied anything; that remains for trial.

Aviator, which Spribe launched in February 2019, is in the SlotSpecs database. Nothing in this ruling changes how the game works, and it remains available in our catalogue.

The case in brief

ItemDetail
CaseAviator LLC & Ors v Spribe OÜ
Citation[2026] EWCA Civ 1224
Handed down2 October 2026
JudgesLady Justice King, Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Miles; Arnold LJ gave the leading judgment
Decision appealedMichael Tappin KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, 22 May 2026
OutcomeAppeal allowed

What the dispute is about

The claimants say that Spribe’s crash game uses an image and an aeroplane device copied from their own original 2019 version, in which they claim copyright. They are suing for infringement in the UK, Gibraltar and every Berne Convention country other than Georgia. Spribe denies copying, and the case includes Spribe’s own counterclaims for trade mark infringement and passing off.

The claimants had already won proceedings in Georgia, where they successfully challenged Spribe’s Georgian trade mark on the basis that using it would infringe their copyright. NEXT.io reports that Georgia’s Supreme Court ruled in May 2025 and March 2026. The claimants argue that those findings, on whether copyright exists, who owns it and whether copying happened, should bind Spribe in the English case. In legal terms, they say the Georgian judgments create an “issue estoppel”.

What the court decided

The appeal turned on which law decides whether a foreign judgment creates an issue estoppel. In May, the High Court accepted Spribe’s argument that the Rome II Regulation applied. Under Article 8(1), the law of each country where protection is claimed governs an infringement claim, so the effect of the Georgian judgments would have been tested country by country.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. Arnold LJ described issue estoppel as a matter of procedure, about the effect of an earlier judgment, rather than a question of who is liable for infringement. Rome II covers the second kind of question, not the first. The effect of the Georgian judgments will therefore be judged under English law, as the law of the court hearing the case.

What it does not decide

  • Copying: the court has not found that Spribe copied the claimants’ artwork.
  • The Georgian findings: it has not decided whether those findings actually bind Spribe in England, only which law will be used to answer that question.
  • The counterclaims: Spribe’s claims for trade mark infringement and passing off are still to be heard.

NEXT.io reports that a case management conference was listed for 15 October 2026, and that Spribe declined to comment on the ruling.

What it means for players

For anyone playing Aviator in free play, nothing changes. The case concerns artwork and branding, not the game’s maths. Spribe publishes a single RTP of 97% for Aviator, a 3% house edge, and the format is the same as the one described in our guide to crash games: a multiplier climbs from 1x, and the player decides when to collect before the round ends.

The case is also a reminder of how similar crash games are underneath. Many share the same basic rules, so presentation, from the aeroplane to the colour scheme, is a large part of what separates one title from another. That is why the artwork at the centre of this dispute matters to both sides. We will report the outcome when the trial court rules.

Sources

Sources