Published
OnlineCasinoLegal & Regulatory

Aviator LLC details origins of trademark amid ongoing dispute with Adjarabet and Spribe

Following its $330m court victory against Adjarabet and Spribe OÜ, Aviator LLC has provided further details about the origins of the Aviator brand and logo.

aviator.flutter
Listen To Article

In a statement, the company’s legal representative, Nikoloz Gogilidze of Mikadze Gegetchkori Taktakishvili, outlined the history of the Aviator trademark that was at the centre of the dispute.

According to the statement, the Aviator name and logo were created in 2016-2017 by Georgian businessman Teimuraz Ugulava. 

In 2018, the trademark was officially registered with the Georgian State Trademark Agency by City Loft, a company solely owned by Ugulava.

Initially, the Aviator logo was used for a land-based casino, but it later became associated with the Aviator crash game, which was launched on the Adjarabet platform in January 2019, when Ugulava still owned the company. 

When Adjarabet was sold to Flutter Entertainment later in 2019, the rights to the Aviator trademark were not included in the sale. Despite this, Adjarabet and Spribe continued to use the Aviator logo on the platform in Georgia and Armenia until January 2024.

Spribe, which collaborated on the development of the game, also made slight modifications to the logo and began using it internationally.

In 2022, all intellectual property related to the Aviator trademark was transferred from City Loft to Aviator. Aviator then initiated legal action to invalidate Spribe’s use of the modified logo, which had been registered in Georgia and the European Union.

Spribe and Flutter's defense of ownership

In response to the legal developments, both Spribe and Flutter Entertainment have publicly defended their use of the Aviator game and logo. Spribe has maintained that it is the creator of the Aviator game, claiming global intellectual property rights to the game and its logo.

Flutter Entertainment has similarly disputed the Georgian court’s ruling, calling the damages disproportionate and vowing to appeal the decision.

As the legal battle continues, the case highlights the complex nature of intellectual property disputes in the gaming industry, especially when multiple parties are involved in the development and marketing of a product across different jurisdictions.

Premium+ Connections
Premium
 
Premium
 
 
Premium
 
Premium
 
 
Premium
 
Premium
 
Premium
 
Premium
 
Premium
 
Premium Connections
Consultancy
Executive Profiles
Crown Melbourne
Resorts World Las Vegas
Crown Melbourne
Global Gaming Women
Svenska Spel
Follow Us

Facing facts: Nevada vs Macau

How is the Nevada gaming market faring against Macau? Gambli...

Taking stock: Kicking off 2025

Gambling Insider tracks online casino operator and supplier...

Responsible gambling: Who is morally, practically and legally responsible?

Within the ethical complexities of gambling, how much onus f...

Account limits: Legality and fairness in the UK

Paul Sculpher, Director of GRS Recruitment and regular Gambl...

Analysing sports betting data from the Australian Open

Sports betting supplier Betby provides Gambling Insider with...

Company profile: Digitain

Discover Digitain: BUILT TO LEAD iGaming Solutions....

Company profile: DS Virtual Gaming

For two decades, DS Virtual Gaming has been at the forefront...

Exploring X Games' move to sports betting

Gambling Insider’s Megan Elswyth speaks to X Games CEO Jer...