Nintendo’s been involved in its fair share of legal battles over the years, but we have a feeling it might be thinking twice before taking on publisher Pix Arts over the recent release of Monkey Kong In New-York on the Nintendo Switch.
Granted, Nintendo can do whatever it likes, and if it thinks there’s even the slightest chance that it might win a legal case, then chances are it will send its ninjas to battle at the earliest opportunity. What’s interesting about this particular game, however, is that it reminds us of a previous legal battle fought between Nintendo and Universal back in 1983.
Y’see, back in’t day, Universal wound up suing Nintendo over the latter’s new Donkey Kong game, alleging that it was a copyright infringement upon the characters and plot of King Kong. After a seven-day trial, the late judge Robert W. Sweet determined that Universal had no trademark in King Kong, deeming that the company itself had proven the IP to be in the public domain during a previous court case against RKO General. Furthermore, he said it’s unlikely that consumers would genuinely mix up King Kong and Donkey Kong.
Nintendo’s defence lawyer at the time, the late John Kirby, was gifted a $30,000 sailboat christened ‘Donkey Kong’ for his work during the case. As many of you may already know, his surname was also used as inspiration for the long-running platforming franchise Kirby.
Now, if Nintendo even notices Monkey Kong in New-York on the Switch eShop (because let’s face it, it’s a small drop in a big ocean given the amount of bilge being uploaded these days), it may have to think long and hard about whether it wants to pursue legal action against this particular game given the hassle it had to go through back in ‘83.
The big difference here, of course, is that Nintendo does own the trademark to Donkey Kong – obviously – and the similarities between ‘Donkey Kong’ and ‘Monkey Kong’ are arguably much closer than that of King Kong. In addition, the game’s logo is somewhat similar to that of Donkey Kong’s, but we’re not sure anybody would look at the generic character model for the titular character and mistake it for Nintendo’s famous, lovable ape.
Chances are that if Nintendo wants Monkey Kong in New-York removed from the eShop, it can probably do so with little fuss, and we sincerely doubt a case such as this would make it all the way to court. Still, it’s interesting to look at the similarities to the ‘83 case, right?
Nintendo’s been involved in its fair share of legal battles over the years, but we have a feeling it might be thinking twice before taking on publisher Pix Arts over the recent release of Monkey Kong In New-York on the Nintendo Switch.
Granted, Nintendo can do whatever it likes, and if it thinks there’s even the slightest chance that it might win a legal case, then chances are it will send its ninjas to battle at the earliest opportunity. What’s interesting about this particular game, however, is that it reminds us of a previous legal battle fought between Nintendo and Universal back in 1983.
Y’see, back in't day, Universal wound up suing Nintendo over the latter’s new Donkey Kong game, alleging that it was a copyright infringement upon the characters and plot of King Kong. After a seven-day trial, the late judge Robert W. Sweet determined that Universal had no trademark in King Kong, deeming that the company itself had proven the IP to be in the public domain during a previous court case against RKO General. Furthermore, he said it’s unlikely that consumers would genuinely mix up King Kong and Donkey Kong.
Nintendo’s defence lawyer at the time, the late John Kirby, was gifted a $30,000 sailboat christened ‘Donkey Kong’ for his work during the case. As many of you may already know, his surname was also used as inspiration for the long-running platforming franchise Kirby.
Now, if Nintendo even notices Monkey Kong in New-York on the Switch eShop (because let’s face it, it’s a small drop in a big ocean given the amount of bilge being uploaded these days), it may have to think long and hard about whether it wants to pursue legal action against this particular game given the hassle it had to go through back in ‘83.
The big difference here, of course, is that Nintendo does own the trademark to Donkey Kong – obviously – and the similarities between ‘Donkey Kong’ and ‘Monkey Kong’ are arguably much closer than that of King Kong. In addition, the game’s logo is somewhat similar to that of Donkey Kong’s, but we’re not sure anybody would look at the generic character model for the titular character and mistake it for Nintendo’s famous, lovable ape.
Chances are that if Nintendo wants Monkey Kong in New-York removed from the eShop, it can probably do so with little fuss, and we sincerely doubt a case such as this would make it all the way to court. Still, it’s interesting to look at the similarities to the ‘83 case, right?
