Spribe announced its legal victory through LinkedIn on April 15. It stated that the Court of Justice of Pernambuco had issued an order for interim measures against NSX Brasil S.A., the company behind Betnacional. The operator was ordered to cease using the ‘AVIATOR’ trademark, as well as identical or confusingly similar signs, including related visual elements.
What Can Be Verified
Part of that story is easy to check. There is a public case-search pathway in the TJPE system. Third-party legal indexing shows that case No. 0111453-89.2025.8.17.2001 is a trademark dispute involving Spribe OÜ and NSX Brasil S.A.
Betnacional is a significant brand name in Brazil. Flutter announced the deal in September 2024 and completed the acquisition of a 56% stake in NSX on May 14, 2025.
What Remains Unconfirmed
Access routes that are open to the public do not currently show the underlying ruling. Instead, they lead to a JavaScript verification barrier. Because of this, it is possible to find out about the case, but the publicly available record does not fully confirm the interim order that Spribe talks about.
In Brazil, where the market is regulated, differences between what companies say and what courts decide affect how each side sees risks.
How the Fight Reached Brazil
Betnacional had been an authorized licensee since 2022, according to Spribe. However, things got complicated after the operator introduced another game under the Aviator name in 2025. It was offered by Aviator Studio. Spribe says that version imitates its own Aviator game, which the company says it developed in late 2018.
That episode isn’t new for the game maker. In 2025, Spribe also secured an interim injunction in the UK against Aviator LLC in a separate IP dispute over a competing Aviator-branded game.
Bottom Line
Disputes related to trademark infringement and violations involving names, brands, and supplier rights are not likely to end in Brazil. This can be seen from Spribe’s public statement, where the studio claims that a court took prompt action in the case. However, things may be different, as the publicly available record still does not confirm the interim order described by Spribe.
