Random: Local Supermarket Wins Trademark Battle Against Nintendo – Nintendo Life
GuestGuestLogin | Sign UpNintendo LifeGuestLogin or Sign UpIt didn’t expect to beat “such a commercial monster”Nintendo has legally pursued all sorts of companies and projects over the years, and it often gets its desired outcome. However, it’s not gone the same way in a recent trademark battle against a family-owned Costa Rican “super” market.’Super Mario’, which is located in San Ramón (and does not make any reference to the famous video game series other than its name), has been trading for decades. Unfortunately, when Mario’s son attempted to renew the supermarket’s registered trademark last year, Nintendo stepped in.The father and son duo weren’t sure how they were going to win a fight against “such a commercial monster” and at one point thought about “throwing in the towel”. Fortunately, it all worked out:”I would like to greatly thank my legal and accounting advisor José Edgardo Jiménez Blanco who was in charge of the registration and the subsequent fight for the trademark rights. For a moment we thought about throwing in the towel. How were we going to win against such a commercial monster? Especially with the number of legal documents presented by them to ensure victory.Well, luckily Edgardo and I stood firm and a few days ago we received the good news.”Costa Rica’s trademark authority, the National Register, ended up siding with the local supermarket as although Nintendo has trademarked ‘Super Mario’ under various categories, supermarkets and the “sale of groceries” is not referenced.As you can see in the photos, the supermarket logo has no notable resemblance to the famous video game, with the wording “Super Mario – Su lugar de confianza” translating to “Super Mario – your trusted place”. And if you do end up visiting this store, you can receive a free sticker with the supermarket’s logo on it.”This is a giant step towards our vision and the reason a company this big is getting picky is because we are making ourselves noticed. SUPER MARIO is here to stay.”While this is a legal battle that’s gone against Nintendo, certain other companies closer to home are feeling the pressure.Nintendo’s lawsuit claims it “infringes multiple patent rights”Emulation explanationNinjas in 3… 2… 1…What are your thoughts about all of this? Let us know in the comments.[source facebook.com, via eurogamer.net]About Liam DoolanLiam is a news writer and reviewer for Nintendo Life and Pure Xbox. He’s been writing about games for more than 15 years and is a lifelong fan of Mario and Master Chief.Comments 103Come on Nintendo…. Really? Against a local family supermarket? 😒😒They dont own the name Mario and this was just a disgusting bully move by them.Yeah, this is some disgusting nonsense on Nintendo’s part. Glad they lost.Oh, gosh…
Mario name cannot be patented as there will be another Mario names on different commercial places or brand.
Also, that “Super Mario” Supermarket name have nothing related with Nintendo Mario so Nintendo cannot suing the owner of Super Mario Supermarket as the naming can be coincidentally same as Super Mario video games. If the owner of that supermarket is really Mr. Mario, Nintendo cannot blame him for choosing his name Mario for his supermarket name.I was thinking if Nintendo really want us to enjoy their product with their complicated way to appreciate their products and sometimes it can be frustrating if Nintendo saw something that they thought violating their copyright just because it has similarity with their Nintendo products.Found some other MARIO name on different products.
Good for them! I don’t like when big companies like Nintendo sue against small, family-owned businesses like that.Mr Lemieux, your thoughts…Am I allowed to name my kid Mario or are Nintendo going to sue me? Mario is turning 40. Does that mean that anyone called Mario who’s over 40 can sue Nintendo for using their name without permission?How will the Nintendo ever recover from this? Damages to their name must exceed $14 million.All fun and games until they start hearing guardian music PS I think the market was in the right hereOne of my neighbors is named Mario and owns a driving school named Super Mario. As long as it’s not related to video games, I don’t see any issue with that.I’m completely in favor of companies protecting their IPs. Which is why it’s good the grocery store did exactly that.Disgusting Nintendo, absolutely disgusting.@DiamondJim @Anti-Matter – To clarify, it’s specifically the phrase “Super Mario” that was in contention here, as that’s the official name of the Mario videogame series. If the restaurant business had called it “Wonderful Mario”, or “Spectacular Mario” I don’t think Nintendo would’ve cared.@Yoshi3 – Does them being a “small family business” really matter when it comes to these things? Surely the only thing that does is whether there’s a legitimate breach of the trademark or not?————Fair enough, Nintendo probably should’ve done their homework beforehand and realised they didn’t have a case (would’ve saved everyone involved time and money), but at least it seems to have been sorted out in the end.What I don’t understand is….how can Nintendo, who happens to be home of many good and great first and third party games, go after something like this??My thoughts are is that…. There are two branches. One gaming, and the other is business management. I could be wrong, and would love to hear a correction, if there is one.Nintendo aggressively filing trademark lawsuits to everything (including people) named ‘Super Mario’, even if it doesn’t associate with the Nintendo brand:Glad they lost. They don’t own the name Mario and this nice little family shop isn’t hurting them in anyway, the only way it does is them pulling stunts like this.@MarcusIsCool @FullMetalWesker
Yes this is purely a business move. What if it get’s to franchise under the new owner? When DO you sue.I think they knew they didn’t really have a case. But large businesses like this usually rely on the scared tactic. I’m taking you to court, and have a lot of evidence! Back away or settle already!(It used to be Trumps whole schtick. Keep draging on the cost of legal fees till they fold.)Ps. And I hate these tactics and Ninty got what’s coming if that wasn’t clear! 😂Nintendo did recently file trademarks for hotels and cafés, I believe. I doubt they’re looking to expand into grocery stores though, because how or why would they?Personally, I get where Nintendo is coming from, to an extent. I mean, the font is basically identical to the Super Mario Bros. font. It’s one thing to operate a local used games store that has a large Mario standee out front to show the kinds of games you have for sale. The average person isn’t going to see that and assume this is an official Nintendo store, necessarily. But if it’s in the actual name of the store, I could see that causing confusion.You could say, well what’s the big deal? So what if people are confused? Consider if the grocery store isn’t properly storing their frozen meat at the appropriate temperature. Then you’d get a news headline like “Salmonella outbreak at local Super Mario store due to owner negligence.” Nintendo doesn’t want to be mistakenly associated with that.Likewise, you’ve probably seen the Spanish commercials on YouTube for “Dr. Amigo,” whose mascot is straight up Dr. Mario. Imagine if a patient dies at this facility due to medical malpractice. What would that do to Nintendo’s brand? Now their most iconic character is associated with killing somebody.I could understand people getting upset about this if Nintendo was suing this small family business and looking for reparations; that would be a pretty big PR fiasco and would totally be a bully move by Nintendo. But I’m interpreting this as Nintendo just intervening with the trademark renewal process and trying to get them to stop using their likeness. “Hey, we’re not asking you for money, but we’d like you to change the name.” Which, I think is completely valid. This is a small PR hit they’re willing to take to avoid a much larger PR issue of someone slipping on a wet floor and dying of a concussion at Super Mario’s.hopefully the first of many defeats for nintendo!@FullMetalWesker what you don’t get is that here in Spanish/latin talking countries we call supermarkets “SUPERS” … so “Super Mario” is the same as saying “Market Mario” or “Mario’s Grocery store”If I know this I’m PRETTY SURE a lawyer that earns twice or triple what I do should know this.Also, IP and copyright protection apply to the “category” you’re infringing … a market doesn’t sell or develops videogames, nor is it using any font, color, mascot or ANYTHING resembling the videogame character.No wonder Nintendo lost, because even a mule could see they were doomed to lose, and if they even had a bit of hope of winning this case then they were looking into bullying them because they felt comfortable with their power.The smart lawyer who came up with this idea should be fired…. expecting to win a no-case is either from an unethical lawyer, or an unprofessional one.I’m surprised they didn’t go after StarFox Liquor, I discovered there was a place named that when Takaya Imamura shared it on Twitter.Oh, yeah, Star Fox is dead to Nintendo unless it’s 64¼ this time.@garfreek yes I see your point, but it truly is disheartening to see a big company go after a small supermarket. I’m a big Nintendo fan, and that’s why it really hurts.I think just because you can sue, doesn’t mean you should. There’s always arbitration, and I’m pretty sure they could have settled this out of court imo.@Yoshi3 That’s an important bit of context that changes my perspective on things a bit. In that case, I think the name is fine, but they should have picked a different font that doesn’t look almost identical to the Super Mario Bros. logo to distance themselves from the video game company. If they just did that, I don’t think they would have been on Nintendo’s radar in the first place, personally.@MarcusIsCool Nintendo didn’t become this big by being nice, and Shigeru Miyamoto isn’t really involved in Nintendo’s business decisions. Their former president Hiroshi Yamauchi was an absolutely ruthless businessman, and some of their actions during the NES days are almost unthinkable today. Nintendo actually restricted third parties on developing for rival systems, as well as how many games they could develop for the NES, to the degree that they lost a FTC lawsuit.@Not_Soos yeah that’s what I guessed that people didn’t get this context, and when I saw it was in a Spanish talking country I knew the reasoning behind the name. (The owner’s name is Mario and it’s his “super”… Super Mario=Mario’s Market/grocery store)
Also, to be fair, it’s not even the same font. It looks a bit like it, but has enough differences, and it’s not even using the same colors or identity to confuse anyone. I know that it is an unwinnable case.
so did he win any money?Maybe I’m just imagining it, but the font they use kinda looks like the font Nintendo’s super mario has used. Not that that means an infringement.@N8tiveT3ch no, he was the one being sued. I think he’d have to counter sue to get any settlement.Good. ***** Nintendo’s litigiousness.And this is why I’m not changing my rule of only buying 2nd hand Nintendo productsIf they were copying colors, branding, and whatever else, sure, Nintendo has a right to step in. But this is literally just a name, nothing more.For the first time, I gotta say, Nintendo pursuing trademark/copyright in court and losing was correct and justified.Well Nintendo is not in the grocery industry so they had no say in local grocery stores using the trademark. It’s similar to why Sega can’t sue Sonic Drive-In since Sega doesn’t operate in the fast food industry.@AmyTheBrawler Nintendo probably doesn’t want to kick that hornet’s nest anyway given Marvel beat them to Starfox by a good 20 years.@PKDuckman At least that was game related. I don’t even know that Yamauchi would’ve bothered or been petty enough to sue a family grocery store, especially one in Costa Rica. Nintendo seems to like to sue anything that moves since Shuntaro Furukawa became president.This time around i just can’t see it to defend Nintendo, what a ridiculous move. In no way does the super market show anything related to the Super Mario series. Dont be like that Nintendo, be bettah. What a dissapointment to see Nintendo go after a small local store that Isn’t even harming them or infrigging any copyrights. Finish your thing with Palworld and go after jolly rogger pirates🥷🛶🌊🌊Yeah, I am glad Nintendo lost. Just sad really. But seeing how Nintendo is changing for the worst, I am not surprised.Buy your mushrooms from Super MarioNintendo lost? NO! IMPOSSIBLE! All joking aside, ninty had this coming for a long time. While I may support them, should they do something like this, I’ll turn on them. Don’t like it miyamoto? SUCK IT UP.Do Nintendo not realise that the more they keep acting like this, the more people’s perception of them is changing in a negative way?I would say that’s more damaging than there being a Mario supermarket sign in Costa Rica.They’re going to start alienating their fans if they’re not careful and then their IP will be worth a lot less.You turned positive publicity into double negative publicity. You now look like pathetic a-holes. Puny business beats tech behemoth. Congrats, nintendo!About positive publicity. Even is this is a cheap-on the verge of closing for sanitary reasons establishment, it’s all about that chuckle you get when you read the shop’s title. Even if it’s the opposite of the image you want to have, the farthest it is, the funnier it gets. I agree with some lawsuits. Some. Don’t agree with many. This one, this one makes you look really bad.Hey, Big N. Chiiilllll…I do get those suggesting the big N are being a bit overhanded with all this. But the super market calling itself “Super Mario”, they had to expect a bit of a reaction. They should have just gone the whole hog and called it “Super Mario Brothers”.If I ever visit San Ramón in Costa Rica I will visit this supermarket so it’s a little bit of advertising. Chances of me going there are slim to none as it is not on my list of places to visit but you never know ow.I think if they did want to branch into groceries they’d go with Mario Mart, or Malo Mart for the Twilight Princess fans.Now I’m going to do something I shouldn’t because I’m not a lawyer. I’m going to link to a us law office though that says what I’m going to say, though I also don’t know how this applies to companies outside of the US such as in this case:https://www.lodhs.com/blog/defend-your-trademark-or-you-could-lose-it/#:~:text=However%2C%20trademarks%20aren’t%20automatically,with%20it%2C%20your%20brand’s%20identity.But to the question of “Why does Nintendo choose to be mean” the answer as I understand it is that they don’t have a choice. It’s not about setting out to be a villain. In order to maintain a trademark you have to fight to defend it in court. If you don’t show that you care deeply about it then one day it can be invalidated. It’s like “squatter’s rights” type stuff. If you become aware that someone is or might be using your thing and you don’t try to defend your thing the fact that you didn’t try to stop it can be used against you in court. I don’t think there’s room here for selective enforcement either.Another better example is trademark genericization, when a brand name becomes the common name for a thing. “Aspirin” was a trademarked name of a drug that almost no one could name today. We here in the States do not have the word in language to ask for a… whatever aspirin is without using the trademark, which is why the company that owned it lost it.Here’s a list of other such names we all use that most wouldn’t believe used to belong to specific companies: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericized_trademarksAnd there was a time where “Google” started to mean “search online” regardless of engine and before that a time when “Nintendo” started to mean “video game” and in both cases both companies had to aggressively fight against that shift to protect their ownership. It’s not about being a bully, it’s about legal obligations. But folks rarely bring that up when they cover these situations because 1) most people aren’t lawyers and shouldn’t give legal advice (me included, I know), and 2) lawyers are reluctant to give blanket legal advice to non-clients, in part probably for liability reasons lol. (I worked in big tech and I literally could not get our legal department to say that a customer could print one of our online web pages out for offline reading without it violating any copyrights. I was very seriously told they would need to consult their own lawyers for advice about their rights and risks)In this case the court found against them which is right. But I don’t hold it against them that they took it to the courts to decide. I would prefer it the grocery didn’t have to eat court costs though.Love to see it as it’s absolutely ridiculous going after a local supermarket first and foremost and even more so since apart from the name which is a combination of a common word and an incredibly widespread proper name it has nothing to do with the Super Mario franchise (and no, not even the font is the same as already pointed out here) – fingers crossed Nintendo starts losing the lawsuits where there’s no actual reason for them to win beyond them having the money to potentially drag legal costs etc. and so stops being so litigious and overprotective of their IPs!It does amuse me that people seem to picture Nintendo as a group of about 20 people in a little office in Japan, developing Mario games and deciding who to sue next. Nintendo is a huge company with branches across multiple continents. Nintendo America’s legal team can sue someone without checking in with Miyamoto first. Some big companies don’t even have in-house legal teams for this sort of thing, they are represented by legal firms who can action takedowns and legal proceedings independently.It reminds me of when The Verve were sued over Bittersweet Symphony copying a Stones song. Someone asked Keith Richards about it and he said he didn’t know the case had been brought and actually felt a bit bad for the guys. Something along the lines of “We have lawyers who do all this stuff by themselves.”. Of course he could be full of it, but the wider point remains.Now I’m not saying I like the system, I don’t, I’m just pointing out roughly how it works. And it will be different in every territory due to differing trademark protection laws. Hence why Nintendo rarely ever sues anyone in Japan.@PKDuckman
“as well as how many games they could develop for the NES”And this is why Hudson Soft went on and co-created the PC Engine, so it’s not all bad.@JohnnyMind,So apart from the videogame character who do you know in real life called “Super Mario”. I am not suggesting all of your points are wrong. But I am pretty sure this business knew what it was doing with all this.”‘Super Mario’, which is located in San Ramón (and does not make any reference to the famous video game series other than its name), has been trading for decades.”Which is why they won in the end. Someone on the monitoring lawyer team clearly acted with the judgement capacity of a YouTube algorithm and will likely have to explain the budget spent on dragging this all the way to court somewhere the company probably doesn’t even have much of an official market presence in.@FaroreAbhorsen I mostly ended up memorizing the drug (if admittedly not its English spelling😅) courtesy of a related drugstore joke:”Hello, do you have acetylsalicylic acid?””You mean aspirin?””Right, thanks, I keep forgetting the name”Lol acting like this will somehow damage perception of Nintendo. Disney and Nintendo didn’t get to their brand sizes by playing nice but no one cares when the product is so appealing. Sounds like a reflexive action based on the renewal by the legal team who is paid to sue everyone to keep up the threat and ensure Mario continues to have near unparalleled brand power.@Snatcher Obviously they don’t own “Mario” as a trademark, they own “Super Mario” as a trademark, that’s what this was about. Not “Mario” but “Super Mario” specifically. But it gets even more specific, since they only own “Super Mario” in specific categories, supermarkets not being one of them.@Athropos “One of my neighbors is named Mario and owns a driving school named Super Mario. As long as it’s not related to video games, I don’t see any issue with that.”A super market owned by Mario called “Super Mario” makes sense.A driving school called Super Mario might have a weaker case.Seems it’s most likely inspired by the games?Also Nintendo’s Mario and cars are connected: Super Mario Kart anyone?What does the logo look like?This reminds me of when two businesses named Burger King sued each other for the use of the name “Burger King.” In Mattoon, Illinois, there is an independently-owned restaurant that was named Burger King that bills itself as “The Original Burger King”). Well, when the corporate Burger King (which was founded in Florida) started to enter the Illinois market, the Mattoon Burger King sued in state court for the trademark. The corporate Burger King countersued in federal court, and since federal law supersedes state law, the federal ruling was the one that applied.What ended up happening was that the corporate Burger King could not operate a location within a 20-mile radius of Mattoon, with the Mattoon Burger King being the epicenter of that radius. Likewise, the Mattoon Burger King could not operate outside that 20-mile radius. The corporate Burger King did offer the owners of the Mattoon Burger King $10,000 to operate a franchise within that 20-mile radius, but the owners refused.This case kind of reminds me of that.@myerscereal So because Nintendo could try to take action against them even though it’s in the wrong as luckily has been proven despite the disparity of forces at play they shouldn’t have done so in the first place?
While of course they could’ve done that to avoid this whole situation at a personal level I’m so glad that they didn’t and so it has been proven that Nintendo wasn’t in the right in this case and hopefully the company will even just slightly ease up on the lawsuits at least in the more questionable cases like this one – as a big Nintendo fan who has supported the official releases throughout my life, how I wish Nintendo weren’t so infamously litigious and overprotective of its IPs in general, though (and as I’ve said before and is also pointed out in the article I linked there are several gaming companies that have shown that you can act differently and still be perfectly fine when it comes to fan games, user-made video content etc.)!Just had to sneak the Palworld article in there. LolSuper Mario, how cool is that when it’s your actual name? I would have personally chosen “Mario Shopping Kart”. Good luck trying to sue this.@JohnnyMind,There is no definitive right or wrong with any of this. Like I said in my previous comment I think Nintendo in this instance have taken things too far. But they would have not gone into any of this in the first place if they did not think they had a chance of winning.So what if a massive supermarket chain had done this?@DiamondJimIt’ll be a long time and I won’t be around, but I’d like to see how Nintendo handles Mario entering the public domain.I think Nintendo need to remember what happened with the Donkey Kong lawsuit and maybe pick and choose when they go into legal action.@myerscereal A massive supermarket chain would’ve most likely been in the right as well according to the law (which of course is far from perfect, but that’s besides the point since we’re talking about lawsuits first and foremost and even more so since the reasoning behind the decision is logical) “as although Nintendo has trademarked ‘Super Mario’ under various categories, supermarkets and the “sale of groceries” is not referenced” and Nintendo could’ve considered that before taking legal action – it being against a local supermarket makes this even more disgusting, but that’s not the fundamental point of the matter!Dude… could’ve at least named it Mario Mart.This is real scumbag behavior on Nintendo’s part.A real boss move of this supermarket would be to go into game development nowAlso, most Mario games have “Super Mario” in the title. This store is called “Super Mario.” Any gamer who goes to that store is likely going to think they’re feeding off the character as subtly as possible. I mean, sure, plenty of unrelated things have the same name, but “Super Mario”? Yeah, I’m on Nintendo’s side with this one. Just like with Palword. And most emulators. And hopefully those Animal Crossing and Mario Strikers rip-offs.@Yoshi3 i don’t think nintendo expected it to go to court… bit of bullying is often enoughin Nintendo’s defense though, to protect a trademark you have to be seen to be defending it…happy the small guy won thoughEvery day, the memes I hated seem to be growing more and more truthful…In Latin America….the word SUPER = MEDIUM SIZE MARKET. The word HIPER = BIG SIZE MARKET.It has no relation to Nintendo.I was buying a nintendo game today (this last super sale). I won’t buy it anymore.So yeah, I see most of these comments are just variations of “Nintendo bad grrr!”Here’s the thing. In trademark law, you have to defend your trademark. If you allow other companies to trademark things similar to your trademark without challenging it, it weakens your hold on the trademark. If I trademark something, then 100 other people trademark something similar and I ignore it, but decide the 101st person was too close and challenge that, the trademark office will basically say that since I let the first 100 trademarks go unchallenged, they are going to allow the new one also.So it’s not really “Nintendo bad, Nintendo trying to shut down mom and pop!” It’s Nintendo defending its mark. They don’t need or expect to win, they just need to file.This is why you should never just blindly give in when you think you’re not doing something wrong, and certainly not just because teh Internet has typically a totally ignorant opinion on such things everywhere you look. These corporations are not God, and, as some people have said, they’re gonna take action whether they’re right or wrong. So it’s on you to fight for your right if indeed you think you’re in the right. And, as you can see with this example, sometimes it’s not so clear cut that you’re not in the right.A father-son business? What the hell Nintendo 😭😭I heard they only sell various mushrooms, turnips and toad heads. Seems kinda shady to me.Bad form, Nintendo. Bad form.Glad you lost this one.Something similar happened with Burger King in Australia, as there was already a family-owned takeaway shop with the same name when Burger King was looking to expand its operations to Australia in 1971, and hence why the brand is known as Hungry Jack’s here.But when Burger King (international) sought to take over the Hungry Jack’s brand in the late 90s, a legal battle ensued, as Burger King had breached the conditions of their sublicensing agreement (or something to that effect; I’m not fluent in legalese).I recall a bunch of Burger Kings popping up in Sydney in the early 2000s, but I was unaware of the legal troubles at the time, but they had swiftly disappeared by the mid 2000s anyway.But Hungry Jack’s is still going strong, in all of its crappy fast “food” glory. I recall an ad a few years ago where the actors posing as perfectly ordinary people were bragging about there being “no added hormones” in their meat, and gushing “Wow! No wonder the burgers taste so good.” Pathetic.Anyway, I’m glad that the supermarket stood their ground. Nintendo ought to count themselves lucky that THEY aren’t being forced to rebrand all Mario games and paraphernalia for the Costa Rica market, not that it even has much of a market (if at all!). How bloody petty of Nintendo.@bimmy-lee Nice line in flashing stars too, along with cute toy rideable green dinosaurs.@WiltonRoots – Ah, they’re branching out since the last time I was there. If they start selling wooden barrels & red neckties, Nintendo will need to revisit this lawsuit.Well darn, there goes my hopes and dreams of seeing an official Mario branded store chain from Nintendo.@Yoshi3I think it had to do with the combination of Super and Mario, considering Super Mario Bros. is a trademark, etc… But I usually let them handle it. Never went to law school.@bimmy-lee I did notice some red and blue dungarees on their website too. Along with some nifty white gloves. Coincidence no doubt.@JohnnyMind,The law does not deal with emotions. And I am pretty sure Nintendo had a case. If they should have brought this action is another matter altogether. But the ruling was in favor of the supermarket.Anything else is only peoples personal subjective opinions on the matter, no biggie if we disagree either way.@WiltonRoots.Hi pal…Come on Nintendo, catch a break.@myerscereal morning…hope all’s good.@WiltonRoots,Fine mate. Are you getting a Switch 2 at launch?. Hopefully there will be a better chat facility on it contacting your friends.@WiltonRoots.And I think they were offering plumbing services too.@myerscereal Should be getting one there or thereabouts – depends on price and availability of course!@Athropos he won’t own that driving school for much longer! Thanks a lot, you know that Nintendo reads these comments sections.@WiltonRoots,They will be tough to get, I will pop down to my local Game, they will have pre-orders up…. the price is going to be around £350 ish hopefully.Midnight launch sounds good…Hahaha, now that’s just a bad on, Nintendo.Though, why is anyone surprised? Nintendo is known for ruthless and underhanded tactics. They probably hoped the owners would get scared and fold, but they called their bluff.I actually went to this place last weekend for tamale ingredients. So glad to see they came out on top of this. Super Mario is a cultural Mainstay around here and there’s nothing to do with chubby little Italian video game characters who ruthlessly murder turtles and mushroom people. Nintendo needs to get a grip and back tf up!Now he can sue them them and use the victim part.
A case like this can have a lot of weight (could even lose his business)
Nintendo should at least compensate them.All these years and still getting error purchasing via eshop. They better improve this stuff for Switch 2. Ridiculous 😅Missed opportunity to call it Super Mario Mart, Nintendo’s gotta cool it, I’m surprised their hairs didn’t rise from the back of their necks when my uncle Mario, gave himself the nickname Super Mario at my cousin’s wedding on the billboard for the family names almost last year.By this logic nintendo should be suing people named mario.@Yoshi3 Yeah, the font used by Mario’s Market is Bauhaus 93. I’ve mocked up what the logo would look like with that font here: https://i.postimg.cc/WpGGxyKt/Picture2.pngAs always everyone is inclined to root for the underdog, but to be honest, I can understand where they’re coming from. The term “Super Mario” has become such a household term, everyone automatically associates it with the character.I’m not saying they are always in the right, but it does make perfect sense that they try to defend their IP.@WiltonRoots – Dungarees, puffy white gloves, plumbing services… now they’re offering go karts & vacuum cleaners. This has gone too far, put the dogs on them Nintendo.This was pretty clearly not using anything Nintendo related, but I also wonder how old the store is? Probably not more than 40 years, but if it was that also should eliminate any chance of Nintendo having a say.I love Nintendo’s developers, but their cancerous business side makes it really hard to like them.Huzzah, a good ending.That’s the trouble with these lawsuits, you gotta be careful, it could backfire in your face. Happened to McDonald’s when they went after a restaurant in… Ireland? Wales? Can’t quite remember. Something to do with the term big Mack. And when Macdonalds lost, Burger King took full advantage at mocking them, to rather amusing effect.On the other hand, Sega and Archie comics didn’t take a frivolous lawsuit seriously, and it cost them the use of certain characters and had to reboot their entire comic line.Law suits are a powerful weapon, but it can be a double edged swordI don’t know how Nintendo expected to win this considering they didn’t copyright Super Mario for supermarkets and such. Honestly I just made a look foolish in this case. As a side note, now I want that free sticker LOL@StewdaMegaManNerd @8bit-Man Anyone in Latin America would be immediately aware that the “super” in the name refers to the type of business. It’s like saying Restaurant or Cinema: a common name for a specific type of business.This is a supermarket (a “super”) named “Mario”. Had the Mario in question opened a restaurant instead, it would be “Restaurante Mario”, for example.Now if they had a literal Super Mario of the Bro variety painted on the wall or in the logo, then they’d have a point. But as things are, Nintendo truly only embarrassed themselves with this one.@Eel Thanks for sharing that point of view. I’m aware there is a nuance at play.All in all, this seems like it isn’t a true black or white case. Both parties have valid arguments.@bimmy-lee “release the hounds…”Yea, y’all don’t understand trademark law. Which is especially clear when you use words like “patent” and “copyright” interchangeably with it. You must defend any noticed trademark or risk LOSING IT. So, challenging this store and then losing the case is the best possible outcome for the store, the sanity of the world, AND Nintendo.All they did was legally distinguish the video game franchise and its character from the supermarket. In so doing, they get to keep their trademark — that’s how it works. No more or less. Shame on anyone trying to make it into something more for the sake of some clicks (not that this article is really doing that, but you can see the outcome in the comments).EDIT: Case in point: The Washington Nationals baseball team and Walgreens had to go to court some years ago to hash out whose stylized, swoopy W was whose. I believe a regional grocery chain (Wegmans) was also involved. No one is confusing a baseball team for a convenience or grocery store, but it’s the same legal ground.LINK: https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/466191/the-law-of-the-letter-could-nats-curly-w-be-taken-away/@Eel Yeah, but it would definitely cause confusion among tourists. Though I guess that’s not really important, since that’s merely cultural and lingual differences. Show CommentsLeave A CommentHold on there, you need to login to post a comment…69 Games You Should Pick Up In Nintendo’s ‘Supercharge’ eShop Sale (North America)Every game we scored 9/10 or higherOpinion: My Daughter Made Me Realise That Mario Wonder’s Difficulty Options Need WorkYoshi or Nabbit, make your choiceRandom: Local Supermarket Wins Trademark Battle Against NintendoIt didn’t expect to beat “such a commercial monster”Digital Foundry Digs Into Switch 2’s 4K Upscaling Potential As Patents Inspire More SpeculationHave a little patentsBananas Donkey Kong Country Returns HD Platforming Problem Is Ruining The Co-Op FunUn-ape-peeling 10Random Takaya Imamura Says Nintendo Never Celebrated Its 100th Birthday 15Video 8 Exciting New Games Coming To Nintendo Switch In February 2025 44News The Sims 1 & 2 Have Returned, But Not On Consoles 68Poll With No Switch 2 News Until April, Is A February Nintendo Direct On The Cards? 24News Dragon Quest XI S To Be Temporarily Unavailable On The Switch eShopGuide 69 Games You Should Pick Up In Nintendo’s ‘Supercharge’ eShop Sale (Nort…News Xbox Is “Really Looking Forward” To Supporting Switch 2News New-Look Donkey Kong Items Now Available On The My Nintendo StoreRandom Local Supermarket Wins Trademark Battle Against NintendoReview ENDER MAGNOLIA: Bloom In The Mist (Switch) – An Incredibly Polished, Dow…News Steam Deck Sales Business As Usual For Valve During Week Of Switch 2 RevealNews Digital Foundry Digs Into Switch 2’s 4K Upscaling Potential As Patents I…News Bananas Donkey Kong Country Returns HD Platforming Problem Is Ruining Th…News Japan’s Switch eShop Will Soon No Longer Accept Overseas Payment MethodsGuide Pokémon TCG Pocket: Dialga EX Deck GuidePopular Right NowShow More Join 1,505,175 people following Nintendo Life:© 2025 Hookshot Media, partner of IGN Entertainment | Hosted by 44 Bytes | AdChoices | Do Not Sell My Personal Information
