When it comes to protecting its intellectual property, Nintendo takes no prisoners – even if it's against a supermarket.
Super Mario knows his way around Bowser's castle to save the princess, but he's still the strongest fighter in his natural habitat – the courtroom. Over the years, companies such as Nintendo and Disney have become well known for using legal proceedings to ban even the slightest resemblance to their creations. Sometimes, they bend the law or create new ones to keep their intellectual properties forever and ever. This time, the lawsuit was not against modding or piracy but a supermarket. Here’s everything you need to know about this curious case.
Super Mario Beats Nintendo
The case began when José Mario Alfaro González tried to register the name "Super Mario" for his supermarket, using "Super" as a common term for grocery stores in Spanish-speaking countries, but Nintendo, claiming the name was theirs due to its association with their iconic video game character, filed an appeal to stop the registration.
González's team initially considered changing the name to avoid a legal battle, but they decided to fight back instead. On January 21, they won the case, successfully defending their right to use the name. The court ruled in favor of González because Nintendo doesn’t sell food products on a large scale, making their claim over "Super Mario" invalid in this context. Bringing up the question: What food is Nintendo selling? Crushed turtles?
A History of Lawsuits
This is not the first, and it won’t be the last time Nintendo has taken legal action over their intellectual property.
Jesse Keighin, known as "EveryGameGuru," is facing a lawsuit for streaming pirated, unreleased Nintendo games like Tears of the Kingdom and Pokemon Scarlet across platforms, despite prior takedowns. Nintendo is seeking $150,000 in damages per infringement, which totals to at least $7.5 million for over fifty violations.
Similarly, YouTuber PointCrow had several videos showcasing a modded, multiplayer version of Breath of the Wild demonetized by Nintendo. PointCrow argued the videos were transformative and under fair use, but Nintendo enforced its copyright, leaving the videos available without monetization. Valve allows modders to create a standalone Half-Life co-op game so fans can experience the game with a friend. However, if PointCrow modded the version with a friend, Nintendo would offer him a co-op mod for jail.
Who do you think is in the right in these cases? Do these legal actions affect the Nintendo brand? Let us know in the comments!