Aviator LLC is disputing misleading claims made by Spribe following a procedural court decision in from the UK High Court that granted an interim injunction.
This temporary measure has no legal or commercial impact, and Aviator LLC maintains it is being deliberately misrepresented by Spribe. The UK proceedings follow a decisive victory for Aviator LLC in Georgia, where the Supreme Court upheld decisions of two instances that Spribe infringed Aviator LLC’s copyright and registered trademarks in bad faith.
The UK injunction ruling announced by Spribe previously last week is a narrow procedural order intended to maintain the status quo until trial, and it applies only to the UK market where the company had no immediate plans to launch. The court did not rule on ownership or copyright, and the outcome of the wider legal dispute remains undecided.
In the interim injunction proceedings, Spribe also attempted to use the UK High Court to silence Aviator LLC by requesting a ban on using the Aviator name and making public ownership claims. The court rejected these requests, and Spribe ultimately withdrew the majority of these. As a result, Aviator LLC remains free to maintain its public position and apply for a UK licence from the Gambling Commission should it ever wish to do so.
The interim injunction was issued on the basis that Spribe would compensate Aviator LLC for any damages if it is later found to have been wrongly granted. With no immediate commercial activity planned and the trial expected to conclude before any licence is processed, Aviator LLC believes the injunction holds no real consequence. As such, the ruling is being grossly misrepresented by Spribe in the gambling industry’s trade media.
Commenting on the misleading claims, Nikoloz Gogilidze, legal representative at Aviator LLC, said:
Spribe’s claims of victory are nothing more than spin and a clear attempt to mislead the industry. This injunction simply reflects a market our licensee had no plans to enter in near future, and we remain confident that the full facts will be recognised in court. We will continue to protect our intellectual property wherever necessary.
