Table Of Content :

Home News Pernambuco Court Rejects Spribe Claims Against NSX in Aviator IP Dispute

Pernambuco Court Rejects Spribe Claims Against NSX in Aviator IP Dispute

From exclusive events and interviews to real-time market trends, Ace Alliance brings you unbiased, well-informed, and data-driven content. Our editorial team adheres to strict editorial standards, ensuring that the information you receive is not only relevant but also trustworthy.

Built by market experts hosting events since 2023, with our first event in Riga, Latvia gathering over 300 top level iGaming industry executives, Ace Alliance is able to provide you with reliable information from direct interaction with experts and leaders in the sector.

Altay Celikkaya

Content Manager

Updated: 18/09/26

Reading Time: 3 minutes

A court in Pernambuco has rejected Spribe OÜ’s claims against NSX Brasil in the dispute over the AVIATOR brand. The September 2026 judgment dismissed allegations of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement and unfair competition against Betnacional’s operator.

The ruling concerns the proceedings between Spribe and NSX in Pernambuco. It does not determine every AVIATOR-related dispute involving Spribe in Brazil or other jurisdictions, where separate cases involving different companies and legal questions remain active.

Aviator Studio logo beside the Pernambuco state flag on an Ace Alliance blue background.

Regulation & Compliance

Key Takeaways From the Spribe and NSX Ruling

The Pernambuco court rejected Spribe’s trade mark, copyright and unfair competition claims against NSX Brasil.
The judgment applies to the Pernambuco proceedings involving NSX and Betnacional.
Earlier interim relief obtained by Spribe did not determine the final merits of the three claims.
Separate proceedings involving Aviator Studio and the AVIATOR brand continue elsewhere in Brazil.
The outcome increases the importance of jurisdiction-specific evidence and clearly documented intellectual property ownership.

What the Pernambuco Judgment Changes

The latest decision moves the NSX case beyond the earlier arguments over interim protection. Spribe had sought relief on three distinct legal grounds, but the court rejected each claim in the judgment.

The case can be followed through the Court of Justice of Pernambuco’s official decisions portal under proceeding 0111453-89.2025.8.17.2001. The result means Spribe did not obtain the substantive relief it sought against NSX at this stage. It should not be described as a definitive resolution of ownership or enforcement rights across Brazil, particularly while other related proceedings continue.

Earlier Injunction Did Not Decide the Merits

The procedural history is important. In April, Spribe announced that it had obtained interim relief requiring NSX to stop using the AVIATOR name and related visual elements.

At the time, Spribe said:

This interim decision in Brazil marks a significant milestone in SPRIBE’s worldwide strategy to safeguard its assets.

That measure was provisional. It was later withdrawn after a federal court in Brasília suspended the legal effects of Spribe’s Brazilian AVIATOR registration while separate invalidity proceedings continued. The latest Pernambuco judgment is therefore a subsequent development, not a contradiction in reporting about the earlier order.

For operators and suppliers, the sequence demonstrates why an interim injunction should not be treated as a final determination. Temporary relief can preserve a party’s position while the court considers evidence, ownership records, and the legal basis for each claim.

Wider Brazilian Proceedings Remain Separate

The broader AVIATOR conflict includes proceedings involving Aviator Studio, but those cases should not be combined with the NSX judgment. Earlier decisions in São Paulo allowed Aviator Studio to continue operating while litigation progressed, while federal proceedings have examined the legal effect of Spribe’s trade mark registration.

The distinction between different intellectual property causes of action is commercially important. A recent UK copyright and trade mark dispute involving Entain similarly showed that weakness in one claim does not automatically resolve separate allegations concerning registered marks.

Brand Protection Pressure Grows in Brazil

The judgment arrives as Brazil’s 2026–27 regulatory agenda places greater emphasis on licensing, compliance, and market oversight. Although the NSX case is a private intellectual property dispute rather than a regulatory enforcement action, the outcome affects how suppliers, operators, and aggregators assess content ownership and contractual exposure.

It also reflects wider industry efforts to identify fake casino games and verify original content. For B2B companies, the practical issue extends beyond brand reputation. Distribution agreements, ownership records, asset histories, and territorial rights can determine whether a product remains available when competing claims reach the courts in practice.