•The Pokémon Company International is suing Australian company Pokémon Pty Ltd for advertising a new NFT based Pokémon mobile game, PokéWorld.
• The website for the game PokeWorld is still available. The Pokémon Company International has asked the court to seek a resolution to stop Pokémon Pty Ltd from using their trademarks on the website, and social media, to not launch the game or sell any NFTs using their IP.
• TPCi counsel specifically pointed out that “TPCi, The Pokémon Company and Nintendo had made a deliberate decision not to launch any Pokémon NFTs”.
The Pokémon Company International has filed a lawsuit against Australian company Pokémon Pty Ltd over their new PokéWorld NFT-based mobile game. The Company claims that by using the branding and images of the hugely popular world of Pokémon, without permission, the Defendants are guilty of trademark infringement, false advertising and unfair competition. While such a clash between two companies is never ideal, this shows just how serious the concept of intellectual property is in the business world. No matter how big or small a venture may be, it is important to consider copyright laws to protect oneself and their ideas from exploitation. With this lawsuit moving through the court system, we will soon find out how well these two parties abide by such laws.
TPCi’s Evidence in Court
In court, TPCi provided evidence that they had no intention to ever launch an NFT using their IP. They argued that allowing PokéWorld to proceed with its launch would damage their reputation as well as threaten their other products or games associated with the franchise. Ultimately, they requested an injunction to prevent PokéWorld from launching until further notice.
Impact of PokéWorld on Other Pokémon Products
The impact that PokéWorld could have on other existing or upcoming products associated with the franchise is immense. Not only does it potentially infringe upon TPCi’s intellectual property rights, but it also threatens any potential revenue generated by those products if people choose to support PokéWorld instead. As such, it is important that TPCi takes action against this infringement in order to protect its IP and preserve its ability to monetize it in the future.
Legal Precedents Set by This Case
This case sets many legal precedents regarding how companies should handle potential violations of intellectual property rights within the gaming industry moving forward. It also serves as a reminder that companies need to be aware of how others may attempt to infringe upon their IPs and take necessary steps towards protecting them in order to maintain control over their own creations. Furthermore, this case highlights the importance of understanding trademark laws when creating games or other products associated with a specific franchise or company in order to avoid future disputes over ownership/copyright issues down the line.
NFTs & The Future of Gaming
Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are becoming increasingly popular within gaming due to their ability to provide more secure ownership than traditional digital items such as skins or loot boxes can offer players. As such, this legal conflict between The Pokémon Company International and Pokemon Pty Ltd has larger implications for not only these two companies but also for the entire gaming industry itself as more players become interested in investing in these digital assets through NFTs rather than traditional methods like loot boxes or skins. Therefore, it is essential that companies understand these implications when developing new games or creating digital assets associated with existing ones so that they can protect themselves from potential lawsuits like this one down the line.
I choose you Pokemon
The Pokémon Company International v PokeWord case serves as an important reminder about why it is essential for companies within the gaming industry—especially those dealing with valuable intellectual property rights—to understand trademark laws and be aware of potential violations by third parties who may wish to profit off of their work without permission. Ultimately, this case will help set legal precedents which will shape how companies handle similar conflicts involving intellectual property rights moving forward—which could very well affect how we play games now and into the future!