Brazilian court orders NSX Brasil to halt use of Aviator trademark
A Brazilian court has ordered operator NSX Brasil to stop using the ‘Aviator’ brand after a legal challenge brought by Spribe, the studio behind the game.
The Court of Justice of Pernambuco issued an interim injunction requiring the operator, which runs the Betnacional platform, to stop using the ‘Aviator’ trademark as well as any identical or similar signs.
The ruling also bans the use or reproduction of visual, graphical, and audiovisual elements associated with Spribe’s product, with daily fines in the event of non-compliance. The measure will remain in effect until a final judgment is reached in the case.
NSX Brasil is part of the NSX Group, in which Flutter Entertainment recently acquired a majority stake.
The dispute relates to a game offered by its Betnacional platform under the ‘Aviator’ name since 2025. Spribe alleges the game is an unauthorized reproduction of its own title, launched in 2018. Betnacional had previously operated as an authorized licensee of Spribe beginning in 2022.
The ruling was based on evidence that Spribe has registered the ‘Aviator’ name with Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property, which gives Spribe exclusive rights to use it throughout Brazil.
Verticals:
Sectors:
Topics:
Dig Deeper
Related stories
The Backstory
How a licensing fallout turned into a courtroom test
The fight over the Aviator name in Brazil did not start in a vacuum. Spribe launched the crash game in 2018, then licensed it to operators worldwide. Betnacional, run by NSX Brasil, operated as a licensed partner beginning in 2022, according to court filings summarized in the present dispute. The relationship later frayed. By 2025, Betnacional was offering a game under the Aviator name that Spribe says was an unauthorized reproduction of its product. With Brazil’s online market now regulated and growth accelerating, Spribe leaned on registered trademarks and audiovisual rights to seek swift relief, pressing a claim that its brand equity and product design were being copied in a market it considers strategic.
The legal move comes as crash-style titles have entered the mainstream of online wagering in Brazil, drawing casual and new bettors with simple mechanics and rapid outcomes. The court’s interim injunction, which bars use of the Aviator mark and similar visual elements pending a final judgment, raises the stakes beyond the two companies. It signals how Brazil’s maturing regime will referee disputes at the intersection of intellectual property, licensing and aggressive customer acquisition.
The outcome could reverberate across suppliers and affiliates that push fast-rising titles into newly regulated channels. For operators, the case underlines the cost of ambiguity around brand ownership once a licensing deal ends. For studios, it is a test of how quickly courts will enforce registered marks when product styles, interfaces and marketing cues often resemble one another in a crowded genre.
Flutter’s Brazil bet complicates the picture
The corporate context adds heft. NSX Brasil is part of NSX Group, in which Flutter Entertainment recently took majority control. In January, Flutter disclosed it acquired a 56% stake in NSX for about $350 million, describing Brazil as a high-growth priority with room for technology and risk-management synergies. The company said the deal could lift annual revenue by as much as $220 million and includes options to increase ownership over time. That backdrop, outlined when Flutter acquired a 56% stake in Brazilian operator NSX Group, means any operational changes due to the injunction could ripple through an investment thesis built on scale and local brand strength.
Flutter’s technology and compliance frameworks are central to its pitch in new markets. If NSX must alter branding or game presentation while the case proceeds, it could test integration timelines and marketing plans laid out post-acquisition. Conversely, a negotiated settlement or rapid rebranding could demonstrate the advantage of a deep-pocketed parent with global IP discipline in handling disputes in fast-evolving markets.
Either way, the court action places Flutter’s Brazil narrative under a brighter spotlight. Investors have been watching for early signs that local partnerships, market access and product localization can translate into sustainable share gains under Brazil’s rules. The injunction injects uncertainty into that calculus, at least for near-term customer engagement tied to Aviator-branded content.
Aviator’s brand push raises the marketing stakes
Spribe has been building the Aviator brand well beyond game lobbies. The studio has intensified sports marketing around mixed martial arts, pairing a global UFC partnership with a roster of fighter ambassadors. In recent months Spribe tapped UFC lightweight contender Arman Tsarukyan as an Aviator ambassador, positioning the game with international campaigns and in-Octagon branding at Fight Night and pay-per-view events. It then doubled down in Brazil by naming flyweight champion Alexandre “Cannibal” Pantoja as an Aviator ambassador to amplify reach in a core market.
That marketing investment sharpens Spribe’s incentive to defend its trademark. Sponsorships that aim to drive top-of-funnel awareness can be blunted if lookalike products or branding create confusion. The UFC tie-ins also highlight how crash games, once a niche, now compete for share using mainstream sports platforms that historically belonged to sportsbooks. For operators, the shift underscores the value — and risk — of aligning with supplier-led brands whose customer recognition may grow to rival the platforms that host them.
If the injunction stands through final judgment, Spribe’s brand-building could see a cleaner payoff in Brazil. If the court narrows or lifts the order, expect intensified jockeying over how close rivals can hew to the look and feel of popular titles while avoiding infringement.
Regulation and rivals shape Brazil’s new order
Brazil’s market went live under a national regime this year, catalyzing vendor deals and compliance upgrades across the sector. Sportsbook technology supplier Altenar, for example, recently inked a deal to power Brasil da Sorte’s licensed operations, rolling out trading, risk and compliance support via a managed service. Moves like this show operators arming up with third-party stacks to meet rules while scaling quickly, a dynamic that can pressure proprietary or gray-area content strategies.
The regulatory tide is not only Brazilian. In South Asia, courts are pressing governments to police online gambling more tightly. The Bangladesh High Court ordered authorities to report on efforts to curb online gambling promotion and suggested around-the-clock monitoring, as detailed when judges demanded a government progress report on online gambling advertising. Although distinct from Brazil’s framework, the action illustrates broader momentum for stricter oversight of digital wagering.
For international operators and suppliers, the message is consistent: licensing clarity, IP hygiene and compliance by design are no longer optional. As more jurisdictions formalize rules, brand disputes can migrate from cease-and-desist letters to injunctions with daily fines and immediate operational impact.
What to watch as the case moves forward
Several threads bear watching. First, whether the parties pursue a settlement that preserves commercial ties or opts for a definitive court ruling that could set precedent on trademark scope and audiovisual elements in game design. Second, how fast NSX and Betnacional adapt product offerings and marketing if the injunction remains in force. Speed matters in Brazil’s land-grab phase, and any friction in content lineups can affect retention.
Third, look for signals from Flutter about contingency plans. The company has emphasized its pricing, risk and compliance edge in Brazil. Demonstrating operational resilience amid a brand dispute would reinforce that narrative. Finally, monitor how Spribe leverages its UFC platform in Brazil while the legal process unfolds. A stronger consumer association with Aviator could influence both market behavior and perceptions in court over the distinctiveness of the brand.
The broader lesson is straightforward. As Brazil’s regulated market matures, legal clarity around who owns which brands — and how closely rivals can emulate them — will become a competitive factor as critical as odds-making or app performance. The Aviator dispute is an early test of those boundaries, with implications that extend well beyond a single game or operator.
