What has happened?

• The latest High Court decision [2026] EWHC 2840 (BP) dealt with (1) Spribe’s application to add foreign claims to its counterclaim, and (2) its application for interim injunctions in several foreign territories. 
• The decision shows the attraction of a single London forum, but also the practical hurdles: territorial pleading, evidence for each country, foreign law and remedies that differ between markets. The court kept the related claims together rather than forcing ten separate sets of proceedings. It also granted an interim injunction covering Colombia, Romania and Serbia. 
• This follows last month's Court of Appeal ruling, which held that English law governs whether an earlier Georgian judgment binds Spribe under issue estoppel. Whether the Georgian rulings actually have that effect will be decided at a preliminary issue trial in April 2027. Liability will follow in October 2027.

Why this matters for brand owners

There is a lot to unpack in this judgment, and more to come in the litigation. Key takeaways for brand owners:

• The English court can act as a single forum for overlapping multi-country disputes. It preferred one trial in London to proceedings in ten different jurisdictions, even though it must apply foreign law. That is a pragmatic option for brand owners facing the same copycat in several markets.
• It still needs groundwork in each country. The court refused Spribe’s claims for a number of territories because of a lack of evidence and properly specified relief, not a lack of jurisdiction. A claim that simply says “worldwide” will not succeed.
• The presumption of similarity (which lets the court apply English law instead of numerous foreign laws) is a useful starting point, but it has limits. It helped Spribe show a real prospect of success at the amendment stage. Now that Aviator intends to prove foreign law, both sides must plead it, and the presumption will fall away wherever the evidence shows a material difference. Compare the recent Peppa Pig v Wolfoo case, where the presumption supported wide international copyright relief. Aviator suggests it is less reliable for unregistered rights, where the law varies more between countries.
• Cross-border interim relief from London is possible. A brand owner may be able to stop a rival launching in multiple foreign markets without separate local proceedings. Even where it cannot, it may get an order requiring advance notice of any launch, giving it time to object. Foreign law decides whether the remedy exists, and English principles decide whether to grant it. 

We consider each of the key applications in this decision in more detail below. 

The amendment application

The application

The existing claim

• Aviator is pursuing a claim in the English courts that Spribe has infringed copyright in its Aviator game branding/artwork in the UK and numerous other territories. Spribe has its own counterclaims for UK trade mark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement. 
• Spribe accepted the English court’s jurisdiction over the foreign copyright claims. Each of those claims is governed by the law of the country where protection is claimed, and proving each foreign law is time-consuming and costly. Likely for reasons of efficiency, the parties agreed to presume that foreign copyright law is the same as English law. Under this “presumption of similarity”, the court treats foreign law as materially the same as English law unless a party shows otherwise.

What Spribe tried to add

• Spribe applied to widen its counterclaim to add passing off and unfair competition claims in nine territories (the “Combined Territories”): Canada, Colombia, Ghana, Italy, Kenya, Mexico, Romania, Serbia and South Africa. It also sought equivalent claims in a further 28 territories (the “Further Territories”). In addition, it sought to add foreign copyright claims covering its game graphics and its “Provably Fair” text and graphics.
• Spribe relied on the presumption of similarity for each new claim, so that English law would apply. For unfair competition, it argued that every territory has signed the Paris Convention, which requires protection against confusion with a competitor, so the law would be materially similar. 

Aviator resisted the amendments, including on applicable law and forum (non) conveniens.

The decision

The court looked at the matter holistically. It considered whether England & Wales was the appropriate forum for all the disputes between the parties, and whether the tests for amendment had been met. 

To amend, Spribe had to show a real prospect of success, a coherent and properly particularised case, and evidence to support it. The judge ruled that Spribe met this threshold for certain claims in the Combined Territories, but not for the Further Territories or the “Provably Fair” text and graphics. 

Claims refused

• The Further Territories claims failed mainly because Spribe had not properly particularised its goodwill in each territory, or pleaded and evidenced a threat to launch there. The relief sought was also too broad. Spribe asked for declarations and injunctions “outside the UK” without first establishing what would infringe its rights in each territory. 
• The court also refused the foreign “Provably Fair” copyright claim. The only evidence was trivial use of one small shield graphic in two territories, which did not justify the cost or the court’s time.

Applicable law

• In relation to the remaining claims in the Combined Territories, the court considered the relevance of the applicable law and presumption of similarity arguments, in the context of deciding whether the new claims had a real prospect of success. 
• Spribe argued that the relevant foreign law governing passing off and unfair competition claims would be materially similar to English law, largely based on each territory being a signatory to the Paris Convention. The judge treated UK passing off as a “minimalist” version of the Paris Convention protection. If Spribe could win under English law, it was unlikely to lose under foreign law. Aviator relied on differences in the foreign illegality defences, but the evidence did not show a material difference from the English approach. That was enough for the court to determine whether there was a real prospect of success without further analysis of the underlying foreign law. 
• This does not mean English law will decide those claims at trial. Aviator intends to prove foreign law, so Spribe must now plead the foreign law it relies on, and Aviator will respond. The presumption got Spribe’s claims into the case, but foreign law still has to be dealt with.

Forum

• Aviator argued that England & Wales was not the most appropriate forum for the additional passing off / unfair competition claims, which should instead be heard in the relevant Combined Territories (i.e. ten sets of proceedings rather than one).
• The court accepted that the alleged acts and damage were in the foreign territories and that it would have to apply foreign law (leaving aside any arguments around presumption of similarity). That counted against hearing the claims in England.
• This was, however, still outweighed by the practical benefits of one forum, particularly as the English court will already decide Aviator’s copyright claims for those territories, which form a significant part of Aviator’s defence. 
• As the judge put it (emphasis added):

"... trying the claims of passing off / unfair competition in the Combined Territories in England & Wales (alongside the UK passing off claim) will avoid fragmentation of the dispute and allow it to be determined in a single forum with the reduced inconvenience and expense that will follow... it is clearly more appropriate for Spribe’s passing off / unfair competition claims to be tried in England & Wales than in ten different jurisdictions."

The interim injunction application

The application

• Spribe applied for an interim injunction covering Canada, Colombia, Italy, Romania and Serbia. It wanted to stop Aviator launching or offering a crash game under the AVIATOR name or a similar aeroplane device targeted at those countries. Separately, it asked for an order requiring Aviator to give at least two weeks’ notice before launching its game in any new territory.
• Canada and Italy fell away because Aviator offered undertakings to give 28 days’ notice before launching or marketing its game there, which Spribe accepted. 
• That left the core question of whether to grant an interim injunction for Colombia, Romania and Serbia, where the Aviator game was already on the market.

The decision

The court split the application into two questions, each governed by a different law:

Is an interim injunction available? 

• The judge held that an interim injunction was available as a remedy under the laws of all three territories. 
• The court relied on the presumption of similarity for that narrow point. That was supported by TRIPS Article 50 (Colombia and Romania), the EU Enforcement Directive (Romania) and Aviator’s own Serbian evidence that interim injunctions are available there.

Should it be granted? 

• The court applied the American Cyanamid framework: is there a serious issue to be tried, would damages adequately compensate Spribe, would Spribe’s cross-undertaking adequately compensate Aviator, and, if still uncertain, where does the balance of convenience lie?
• At the request of both parties, the court also looked more closely at the merits. It assessed them under the laws of Colombia, Romania and Serbia, using evidence from local lawyers. 
• The judge found a high probability that Spribe would establish the facts needed to succeed in unfair competition in all three countries. Spribe had traded there since 2019 and 2020, and there was evidence of trade and press confusion. That finding was provisional and subject to the illegality defence, on which the court had only limited evidence.
• Spribe also succeeded on damages. The bigger risk was operators replacing Spribe's game with Aviator's, which could cause large, hard-to-quantify losses. Aviator had not shown it could meet a later award and offered no bank guarantee.
• A full injunction, however, would force Aviator to pull its game from existing platforms, possibly beyond the three countries, causing it unquantifiable harm too. As that would require positive steps, the judge needed a higher degree of assurance before granting it.
• The court also considered whether local courts would regard the order as appropriate. It noted that courts should be cautious where an order affects the local public interest, but that was not the case here. 

The order

• The result was a middle-ground order aimed at preserving the position as it stood on 3 July 2026. 
• Aviator must not launch or offer, or encourage or assist others to offer, a crash game under the AVIATOR name or a similar aeroplane device targeted at Colombia, Romania or Serbia. But platforms that already offered the game on or before 3 July 2026 can continue to do so, and Aviator can keep supplying them.
• Spribe also obtained a notice order for the Further Territories. Aviator must give at least two weeks’ notice, so far as it knows, before the game launches there. This lets Spribe apply for urgent relief in time.

^{This post is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.}