Astarto Group Ltd v Mikael/Mikhael Benjaminovich et al., Claim 802/2024

Expediente y fuentes

Nombre

Astarto Group Ltd v Mikael/Mikhael Benjaminovich et al., Claim 802/2024

Cita

Astarto Group Ltd v Mikael/Mikhael Benjaminovich et al., Claim 802/2024

Tribunal

Limassol District Court

Instancia

tribunal nacional

Fechas

claim and ex parte application

2024-09-02

ex parte orders

2024-09-11

amendment order

2024-11-26

main interim decision

2025-11-04

jurisdiction relief decision

2025-12-22

Decisión

2025-11-04

Estado

resuelto-firmeza-no-verificada

Resultado

Substantial interim relief continued; two information requests denied; action remained pending. Later procedural application on jurisdiction dismissed with EUR 4,062 plus VAT and EUR 6 costs.

Resumen

A serious issue, visible chance of success and risk of inadequate later justice existed. For this interim stage the expert comparison, claimed code uniqueness, communications and relationship evidence were sufficient to support possible copyright ownership, copying and confidence claims. Orders B, E (EUR 3 million), F, G, H and a further order I against defendants 1-9, 12-14 were made absolute; requests C and D for further infringement information were denied because necessity was not explained and the Anton Piller process had already produced extensive evidence. Costs EUR 8,628 plus VAT and EUR 345, reduced 15 percent.

Antecedentes

Astarto alleged ownership of Intimate.AI, Spark AI Messenger and Spark AI, including source code, algorithms/model combinations for on-demand text, image and voice, AI-generated characters, UI/mobile/web design, conversation database, engineering material and confidential business information. It alleged that former contractors left between January and March 2024, formed MindGameAI Solutions on 2 March, and marketed Violex, SoftPear, Not-Alone and HAAN.AI through copied code and know-how. Defendants denied ownership and copying and invoked open-source models/code and independent development.

Historia procesal

Claim and ex parte application filed 2 September 2024; orders issued 11 September; pleading amended 26 November; Anton Piller execution yielded communications; multiple oppositions and supplemental affidavits followed in February-March 2025. On 4 November the court decided the inter partes interim application. On 22 December it separately refused defendant 8 relief from sanctions to raise a late jurisdiction challenge after an appearance on 19 November 2024 and application on 30 December 2024.

Cuestión jurídica

Whether article 32 of Courts Law 14/60 and Copyright Law articles 13A-13B justified continuing prohibitory, freezing, asset-disclosure and infringement-information relief on the disputed record.

Criterio

A serious issue, visible chance of success and risk of inadequate later justice existed. For this interim stage the expert comparison, claimed code uniqueness, communications and relationship evidence were sufficient to support possible copyright ownership, copying and confidence claims. Orders B, E (EUR 3 million), F, G, H and a further order I against defendants 1-9, 12-14 were made absolute; requests C and D for further infringement information were denied because necessity was not explained and the Anton Piller process had already produced extensive evidence. Costs EUR 8,628 plus VAT and EUR 345, reduced 15 percent.

Fundamento decisivo

The low interim threshold forbids final resolution of contested technical originality, open-source provenance, ownership or copying. Evidence of authored source code and unique program elements plus a detailed similarity report can preserve the status quo, but duplicative disclosure is not automatic.

Límites

It did not decide whether AI-generated characters, conversations, images, voice or other outputs are original works, who authored them, or whether open-source model use defeats protection. It is not a grant, registration or final infringement judgment.

Relevancia

doctrina-general

Referencias relacionadas

Peso del precedente

first-instance interlocutory ruling with a later procedural update Integración/votación: Chr. Christodoulou, Senior District Judge single judge

Fuente

Referencia

Astarto Group Ltd v Mikael/Mikhael Benjaminovich et al., Claim 802/2024

Enlace

Consultar fuente

Autoridad

Limassol District Court

Tipo

national first-instance interim GenAI-product, software, database, confidence and asset-freezing ruling; not final merits

Localizador

source-text lines 401-555, 1124-1211, 1901-2207, 2360-2493 and 2566-2628; related 22 December decision lines 437-568

Verificación documentada

Sí