Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. 746 F.2d 112.
Facts: Universal Studios sued Ninendo, claiming that their popular game Donkey Kong, had storyline that was based on that of King Kong and was thus an infringement of Universal's rights to that film's characters and scenario.
Procedural History: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo, Co., Ltd. was heard at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Universal argued that the name Donkey Kong could be confused with King Kong and that the plot of the game was an infringement on that of the film. Nintendo showed key differences between Donkey Kong and King Kong. The court ruled that it was unlikely that anyone would confuse Donkey Kong and King Kong. In the court's opinion, Donkey Kong was "comical" and the ape character "farcical, childlike and nonsexual." The King Kong character, on the other hand, was "a ferocious gorilla in quest of a beautiful woman." The court ended its finding against Universal by declaring that "At best, Donkey Kong is a parody of King Kong."
Issue: Whether Donkey Kong in fact infringes on Universal's movie King Kong?
Holding: Universal appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court found that the game did not infringe upon the movie's trademark. Universal argued this was enough evidence to show customer confusion.
Discussion: Universal presented evidence of a telephone survey of managers and owners of arcades, bowling alleys and restaurants that owned or leased Donkey Kong machines. When asked if they assumed Donkey Kong was made with the authority and permission of the people who produced Donkey Kong, 18% answered affirmatively. The court reiterated that "The two properties have nothing in common but a gorilla, a captive woman, a male rescuer, and a building scenario." Additionally the court found the "Kong" suffix was used in the public arena. The court was also unpersuaded by Universal's survey and found that because they only asked owners of establishments they failed to get potential customer insight regarding the connection. They also found that the question was obviously leading that suggested it's own answer.
While the court ceded that there may be a few customers who are confused about the two products, it was not sufficient for trademark infringement. This case goes to show the lines in the sand a court will draw when considering infringement. The similarity of two original works having the same animal keeping a damsel in distress does not mean that one infringed upon another.
Facts: Universal Studios sued Ninendo, claiming that their popular game Donkey Kong, had storyline that was based on that of King Kong and was thus an infringement of Universal's rights to that film's characters and scenario.
Procedural History: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo, Co., Ltd. was heard at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Universal argued that the name Donkey Kong could be confused with King Kong and that the plot of the game was an infringement on that of the film. Nintendo showed key differences between Donkey Kong and King Kong. The court ruled that it was unlikely that anyone would confuse Donkey Kong and King Kong. In the court's opinion, Donkey Kong was "comical" and the ape character "farcical, childlike and nonsexual." The King Kong character, on the other hand, was "a ferocious gorilla in quest of a beautiful woman." The court ended its finding against Universal by declaring that "At best, Donkey Kong is a parody of King Kong."
Issue: Whether Donkey Kong in fact infringes on Universal's movie King Kong?
Holding: Universal appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The court found that the game did not infringe upon the movie's trademark. Universal argued this was enough evidence to show customer confusion.
Discussion: Universal presented evidence of a telephone survey of managers and owners of arcades, bowling alleys and restaurants that owned or leased Donkey Kong machines. When asked if they assumed Donkey Kong was made with the authority and permission of the people who produced Donkey Kong, 18% answered affirmatively. The court reiterated that "The two properties have nothing in common but a gorilla, a captive woman, a male rescuer, and a building scenario." Additionally the court found the "Kong" suffix was used in the public arena. The court was also unpersuaded by Universal's survey and found that because they only asked owners of establishments they failed to get potential customer insight regarding the connection. They also found that the question was obviously leading that suggested it's own answer.
While the court ceded that there may be a few customers who are confused about the two products, it was not sufficient for trademark infringement. This case goes to show the lines in the sand a court will draw when considering infringement. The similarity of two original works having the same animal keeping a damsel in distress does not mean that one infringed upon another.