Court Halts Supercash Games Promotion in Major Intellectual Property Showdown
The High Court of Justice in Accra has granted an interlocutory injunction that effectively halts the promotion and commercialisation of products branded as “Supercash Games” in Ghana, marking a significant moment in the country’s ongoing effort to strengthen intellectual property protections.
Paperclip Investments Ltd. obtained the restraining order against Sparkhouse Promotions Limited and six named individuals, blocking them from continuing any commercial activities involving Supercash Games products. The injunction, issued on 30 April 2026, emerged from a suit pending since November 2025 and was heard under Suit No. GJ/CM/RPC/0041/2026 before the High Court of Justice, Commercial Division 3.
At the centre of the dispute is Paperclip Investments’ claim that its proprietary software was used without authorisation to develop and market a suite of games, including titles identified as “7 Cups” and “Reveal Scratch for Win.” The Court’s order restrains Sparkhouse Promotions and the individual defendants — Kofi Gilbert, Selom Coco Ahadji, Emmanuel Ofori Bamfo, Terence Asare, and George — from promoting, launching, distributing, or commercialising the infringing products pending the final determination of the suit.
The breadth of the injunction is notable. It extends beyond the named defendants to cover their servants, agents, assigns, privies, and any persons acting under their authority. The Court clearly intended to prevent workarounds that might undermine the restraining order through third-party channels.
In a move that broadens the case’s regulatory implications, the Court also issued restrictive orders affecting the National Lottery Authority, listed as the seventh defendant. The NLA is now barred from granting, issuing, renewing, or endorsing any licence or promotional activity connected with Supercash Games or any other product derived from Paperclip’s proprietary software. This element of the order underscores that intellectual property disputes in Ghana’s gaming and lottery sector are not confined to private commercial actors but can reach into the regulatory approval process itself.
Paperclip Investments positioned the litigation as a defence of its rights under the Copyright Act, 2005 (Act 690). The company argued that in disputes involving former partners and contested proprietary development, the public can be misled about who truly owns the intellectual property behind a product. By granting the interlocutory injunction, the Court has effectively frozen the commercial landscape until the underlying ownership dispute is resolved at a full hearing.
The company further noted that Ghana’s copyright framework places responsibilities not only on creators but also on corporate entities, partnerships, and individuals who may facilitate or contribute to infringement — whether directly or indirectly. This means that those who support licensing, distribution, and public launch efforts can face legal accountability even if they are not the most visible promoters of an infringing product.
Paperclip’s legal team, led by Samuel Kissiedu, Esq., has signalled that the company will pursue all available remedies, including both civil and criminal options, and is prepared to escalate the case to higher judicial levels if necessary.
The ruling sends a clear signal that Ghana’s commercial courts are willing to intervene decisively to protect proprietary software and preserve the integrity of intellectual property rights during litigation. As the dispute moves toward a substantive hearing, the case will be closely watched by technology companies, software developers, and gaming operators across West Africa who are navigating similar questions about ownership, authorship, and the commercial exploitation of digital products.
Image Source: GHANA BUSINESS NEWS
