Aviator LLC Accuses of Deceiving Industry Norms Through the Actions of SPRIBE
In a recent turn of events, Spribe, a gaming company, has secured an interim injunction in the UK. However, it's essential to understand the legal implications and distinctions surrounding this injunction.
An interim injunction, also known as a temporary injunction, is granted before the full trial or hearing, typically in urgent situations to preserve the status quo or prevent imminent harm. It is discretionary and depends on demonstrating a strong or arguable case likely to succeed at trial, the balance of convenience favouring granting the injunction, that damages alone would be inadequate, and the urgency of the situation. Interim injunctions generally last only until the trial or final hearing, commonly 12-18 months.
In contrast, a final injunction, or permanent injunction, is granted after the court has made a decision on the merits at trial or hearing. At this stage, the court requires clear proof of a legal right violated, that an injunction is the fairest and most practical remedy, and considerations of fairness, proportionality, and necessity, i.e., whether damages could suffice instead. Final injunctions may last indefinitely or for a period the court deems appropriate.
The legal distinction between these two types of injunctions lies primarily in their purpose, duration, and the threshold of proof required. Interim injunctions are protective and provisional, based on the likelihood of success and balance of convenience, while final injunctions are determinative and enduring remedies based on a substantive decision on the parties' rights and obligations following full consideration of the case.
In the case of Spribe, it's crucial to note that the interim injunction has no legal effect on the merits of the case, as the trial has not yet determined the case. The licensing process in the UK typically takes around a year, making it highly likely that the trial will conclude before any license application is processed, rendering the interim injunction commercially irrelevant.
To obtain the interim injunction, Spribe gave an undertaking to compensate Aviator LLC for any damages suffered if the interim injunction is later found to have been wrongly granted. If Aviator LLC succeeds on the merits at trial, the interim injunction will likely be discharged, and Spribe's undertaking to compensate Aviator for any resulting damages will take effect.
It's worth mentioning that the preliminary injunction does not prevent Aviator LLC or its licensee from applying for a gambling license in the United Kingdom. Aviator LLC had no plans to launch a game in the UK market, and its licensee does not plan to do so at this time.
Lastly, Spribe continues to claim it is the sole owner of the Aviator crash game and its features, branding, and intellectual property. However, these assertions are incorrect, and Aviator LLC intends to show this at trial. The interim injunction merely maintains the status quo, with no effect on Aviator LLC's plans to enter the UK market or its licensee's commercial activities.
In conclusion, it's essential to understand the legal distinctions between interim and final injunctions when evaluating the implications of Spribe's recent interim injunction. The case is ongoing, and the final decision will provide clarity on the matter.
- Despite securing an interim injunction in the UK, the gaming company Spribe's claims of being the sole owner of the Aviator crash game and its intellectual property are yet to be substantiated in the ongoing trial, which is a matter of the finance and business sectors.
- The interim injunction granted to Spribe against Aviator LLC has no immediate effects on the latter's plans to enter the UK market or its licensee's commercial activities in the industry, as the final injunction, based on a substantive decision on the parties' rights and obligations following full consideration of the case, is yet to be determined.
