A Malta Court Orders Aviator Studio to Stop Using the Aviator Name in the EU

The First Hall of the Civil Court granted Spribe an ex parte provisional injunction on 1 September covering two EU trademarks. The evidence the court cited is the kind operators can check for themselves: the two games appearing side by side in a search on Betsson, and a listing that credited Spribe's game to the wrong studio.

• The First Hall of the Civil Court of Malta issued an ex parte provisional injunction on 1 September against Aviator Studio Limited, Aviator Studio Holding Limited and Aviator Studio USA Limited
• The order requires them to stop using signs identical or similar to Spribe's EU trademarks for identical or similar products and services, and to stop using the aviator.studio website for those purposes
• It covers two EU trademarks: a figurative mark combining the word Aviator with an aircraft image, and a multimedia mark covering elements of the game's audiovisual presentation
• The court found a likelihood of confusion on a prima facie basis, citing the identical name, similar aircraft imagery and the same online gaming audience
• It noted that Aviator Studio Limited had recently obtained a B2B Critical Supply Licence from the Malta Gaming Authority, placing it in a position to expand distribution across Malta and the wider EU

The Evidence the Court Leaned On Was in the Casino Lobbies

Spribe has obtained a provisional injunction from the Maltese courts against three companies linked to Aviator Studio over alleged infringement of its Aviator trademarks. The First Hall of the Civil Court of Malta issued the ex parte order on 1 September, finding on a prima facie basis that Aviator Studio's use of its branding created a likelihood of confusion with Spribe's EU trademarks.

The order names Aviator Studio Limited, Aviator Studio Holding Limited and Aviator Studio USA Limited, and requires them to cease immediately using identical or similar signs to Spribe's EU trademarks in relation to identical or similar products and services. It also orders them to stop using the aviator.studio website, or any other site featuring an identical or similar trademark, for those products and services.

Two EU trademarks are at issue. The first is a figurative mark combining the word Aviator with an aircraft image. The second is a multimedia mark covering elements of the Aviator game's audiovisual presentation, an unusual form of registration that protects how a game looks and sounds in motion rather than a static logo.

The court's reasoning turned on the ordinary experience of a player. It cited the identical Aviator name, similarities between the aircraft imagery and the game's audiovisual sequence, and the fact that both are offered to the same online gaming audience. It also pointed to evidence of actual confusion in the market: the two games appearing alongside each other when users searched for Aviator on Betsson and EuroCasino, and a LuckyStreak listing that appeared to attribute Spribe's game to Aviator Studios.

On urgency, the court noted that the alleged infringement was already occurring in the EU, through EuroCasino in Malta and Betsson in Sweden and Finland, and that Aviator Studio Limited had recently obtained a B2B Critical Supply Licence from the Malta Gaming Authority, putting it in a position to expand distribution across Malta and the wider EU.

Spribe founder David Natroshvili said he was grateful for the decision. The Maltese proceedings are the latest in a campaign that has already produced a Brazilian injunction against Flutter's Betnacional and a procedural win in the UK courts, with parallel actions running in other jurisdictions.

A Multimedia Mark Is the Interesting Piece of Intellectual Property Here

Crash games are a format, and formats are not protectable. Anyone may build a game in which a multiplier rises until a plane flies away, and plenty have. What Spribe has registered, and what the court has now provisionally enforced, is the audiovisual presentation as a multimedia mark, which sits between trademark and design protection and is rarely tested in this sector. If that holds through the inter partes stage, it draws a line that the many Aviator-alike titles on operator lobbies will have to respect: the mechanic is free, the look and the name are not.

The MGA Licence Is Cited as a Reason to Act, Not as a Defence

The most consequential paragraph for the wider supplier market is the one about the Critical Supply Licence. Aviator Studio's recent MGA authorisation was treated by the court not as evidence of legitimacy but as the reason urgency existed, because it enabled EU-wide distribution. A licence is a regulatory permission to supply, not an adjudication of anyone's intellectual property, and suppliers who treat MGA approval as cover for a contested brand are reading it wrong. Operators taking a newly licensed studio's game should be running the trademark check themselves.

Ex Parte Means One Side Has Been Heard

This is a provisional order granted without the respondents present, on a prima facie finding. Aviator Studio has not yet argued its case, and provisional injunctions are routinely varied or discharged once it does. That does not make the order weak, since it binds now and the named companies must comply, but it does mean the balance of the reporting should sit on what the court has ordered rather than on what it has concluded. The substantive question, whether the marks are infringed, remains open.

Spribe is now enforcing the Aviator brand on three continents. The Malta order is the first to reach directly for the distribution licence that would have taken a rival's game across the EU.