Paperclip Investments Ltd. Wins Court Restraint Order as High Court Protects “Supercash Games” Intellectual Property in Landmark Decision

In a momentous victory for intellectual property rights in Ghana’s commercial and entertainment space, Paperclip Investments Ltd. has secured an interlocutory injunction restraining Sparkhouse Promotions Limited and multiple named parties from promoting, launching, distributing, or commercializing “Supercash Games” products, including “7 Cups” and “Reveal Scratch for Win.”
The individuals include: Kofi Gilbert – 2nd Defendant/Respondent, Selom Coco Ahadji – 3rd Defendant/Respondent, Emmanuel Ofori Bamfo – 4th Defendant/Respondent, Terence Asare – 5th Defendant/Respondent, and George – 6th Defendant/Respondents, who according to the Court, are hereby restrained, whether by themselves, their servants, agents, assigns, privies or any person(s) acting under their authority, from proceeding with, participating in, promoting, launching, distributing, or commercializing the infringing products collectively branded as “Supercash Games” (including “7 Cups” and “Reveal Scratch for Win”), or any other product derived from the Plaintiff/Applicant’s proprietary software, pending the final determination of this suit.”
The decision, handed down by the High Court of Justice, Commercial Division 3, sitting in Accra, emphasizes the judiciary’s preparedness to act decisively where proprietary software and copyright protections are at stake, and where the public may otherwise be misled regarding ownership and development of intellectual property.
The matter, which has been before the Courts since November 2025, concluded in a formal court order issued on 30th April 2026. The injunction was granted in Suit No. GJ/CM/RPC/0041/2026, titled Paperclip Investments Ltd. v. Sparkhouse Promotions Limited & 6 Others.
By granting interlocutory relief, the Court effectively maintained the status quo while the substantive dispute is determined at final hearing, preventing the defendants and related parties from continuing activities that the Court recognized as potentially infringing and commercially connected to the plaintiff’s proprietary software.
The injunction’s terms are wide and expressly targeted at both the corporate defendant and the individuals named by the Court. Sparkhouse Promotions Limited is restrained, whether directly or indirectly by its servants, agents, assigns, privies, or any person acting under their authority, from proceeding with, participating in, promoting, launching, distributing, or commercializing the infringing products collectively branded as “Supercash Games.”
This includes the specific games mentioned in the order, “7 Cups” and “Reveal Scratch for Win,” as well as any other product derived from the Plaintiff/Applicant’s proprietary software. The Court made clear that the restraint is intended to endure pending the final determination of the suit, thereby limiting commercial activity during the pendency of the litigation and protecting the plaintiff’s asserted rights.
Prominently, the injunction also extends beyond private parties to include regulatory oversight. The Court further ordered that the 7th Defendant/Respondent, the National Lottery Authority, is restrained through itself, its officers, servants, or assigns, from granting, issuing, renewing, endorsing, participating in, or promoting any license, launch or promotional activity relating to “Supercash Games” or any other infringing product. This order reflects the Court’s attention not only to enforcement against those marketing the products, but also to preventing downstream authorization or facilitation that could perpetuate alleged infringement.
In response to the ruling, Paperclip Investments Ltd. stated that the legal action was brought to protect its proprietary software and intellectual property rights under the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690). The company emphasized that, as an intellectual property-focused business, it will continue to pursue all available legal remedies under the law to ensure that its products and development are not infringed upon.
The company’s position is that the injunction is not simply a technical court step, but a necessary protective measure to safeguard the integrity of its intellectual contributions and to ensure accountability for parties accused of reproducing or commercializing content believed to derive from its proprietary technology.
Among the Court’s considerations, as described by Paperclip Investments Ltd., was the need to ensure that members of the public are not deceived as to who owns the actual intellectual property and proprietary development at the center of a contention that has involved former partners. The company’s statement highlights a broader concern: when disputes over ownership of copyright-protected software and game products are not properly resolved, the public can be misled into attributing authorship or rights to persons or entities that do not legitimately hold them. The interlocutory injunction functions as a safeguard against such confusion by pausing commercialization efforts while the courts examine the underlying claims.
Paperclip Investments Ltd. further noted that Ghanaian copyright law extends responsibilities beyond creators alone, reaching companies, partnerships, and individuals who may otherwise participate in, facilitate, or contribute to infringement directly or indirectly. The company therefore framed its application as consistent with the legal principle that copyright protection carries implications for the wider ecosystem of distribution, promotion, and licensing, and that those who engage with potentially infringing products may face legal consequences if their actions support infringement.
The company also communicated its resolve in clear terms, stating that it will not hesitate to pursue both criminal and civil remedies against involved parties, including escalation to the highest court in the land if needed. With the interlocutory injunction still in force pending the final determination of the suit, the case now moves forward on the substantive issues, where the parties will ultimately be required to establish their rights, defenses, and legal bases before the Court.
For further information, Paperclip Investments Ltd. indicated that its legal team is led by Samuel Kissiedu, Esq. As the litigation progresses, this ruling stands as a strong signal that Ghana’s courts will protect intellectual property rights and curb commercial actions that may undermine the ownership, authorship, and originality protected under the Copyright Act.