Aviator Llc v Spribe Oü: Court of Appeal says English law decides if a foreign judgment binds you here

What happened

Aviator and Spribe both develop online 'crash games' and fell out over a logo used in their respective versions of the game, with claims touching the UK and many other countries that belong to the Berne Convention (an international copyright treaty). Aviator had already won related trademark invalidity proceedings abroad, based on its copyright, and wanted to use those findings on ownership and copying in the English case through a legal tool called issue estoppel, which stops a party relitigating a point already decided elsewhere. Spribe argued that foreign copyright law, not English law, decided whether that tool was even available.

What did the court decide in Aviator v Spribe Oü?

The Court of Appeal reversed the first instance judge and found in Aviator's favour on this point. It held that whether a foreign judgment creates an issue estoppel is a matter of procedural law about the effect of earlier judgments, not part of the substantive copyright law that the Rome II Regulation would otherwise pick for claims outside the UK. Properly categorised, the question sits outside Rome II's scope altogether, or alternatively within its procedural exclusion, so English law as the law of the court hearing the case (the lex fori) continues to govern it, as it did before Rome II existed.

What we learned from this

• What I'd take from this is that English courts will usually apply their own procedural rules to decide if a foreign judgment can be used against an opponent here, even where foreign law governs the underlying copyright dispute.
• Winning a case abroad on ownership or copying can genuinely help a UK case, but it's worth checking separately whether the applicable tests for issue estoppel (recognition, same parties, same issue) are actually met.
• Running IP disputes across several countries at once is often expensive and slow. It's worth thinking early about which jurisdiction's result you actually need to win.

Things to be aware of

The businesses involved

What happened next

• The UK Gambling Commission lifted a suspension of Spribe's licence, though its Aviator game remained unavailable at the time.Source: next.io, April 2026
• Spribe won a case ordering a brand to stop using the 'Aviator' name, after separately having an earlier injunction in its favour revoked.Source: Igamingbusiness, April 2026
• Spribe announced it had secured a provisional injunction protecting its Aviator intellectual property rights across EU territories.Source: PR Newswire, September 2026

What others said about it

• iGaming Afrika reported Aviator's case rested on two separate grounds for invalidating Spribe's trademarks, a practical reminder that parallel foreign proceedings can shape later English litigation.Source: Igamingafrika, September 2024