Illustrated by Shivani Mohan Gaikwad
Winter Intern 2026-Lex Lumen Research Journal
Facts:
A globally renowned Japanese video game company, Nintendo Co., Ltd., known for its Mario Kart racing game series and iconic franchises. It is a Kyoto-based company. Mario Kart has distinctive fictional characters like Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, and Yoshi. It had already been commercially successful around the world.
MariCar Inc. is a Tokyo-based company. It came up with a real-world go-kart rental business where the initial focus was on tourists. These customers were allowed to wear costumes mimicking Mario Kart characters. It is also named itself as MariCar. They promoted their services over social media and online advertisements where images and descriptions resembled the characters of Nintendo games.
Nintendo, therefore, sued MariCar in 2017 over its event of driving on public streets. It is alleged that the business was creating an impression on the people that it is authorised or is affiliated with Nintendo. They also argued that the MariCar is taking advantage of their goodwill and reputation of its famous trademarks and characters, which they built around the world. They also alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Issues:
Whether MariCar’s costume rentals and “MariCar” name infringe Nintendo’s copyrights and violate Japan’s Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA Art. 2(1) (i)) via consumer confusion?
Arguments:
Nintendo’s Arguments
Nintendo contended that MariCar’s business intentionally created an association with the franchise of Mario Kart by having a similar kind of name to Mario Kart. It also promoted materials and costumes similar to the characters of Nintendo. This led to confusion in the minds of the people, where they assumed that MariCar is officially licensed to do so by Nintendo.
They further argued that their characters and trademarks are all well-known and have strong protection under Japanese intellectual property law. Due to similar branding and picturing, MariCar received unfair benefits from Nintendo’s reputation without authorization.
MariCar’s Arguments
MariCar argued that they did not use any Mario Kart trademark; therefore, they have not infringed Nintendo’s trademarks. They further argued that the MariCar name was chosen independently. They also mentioned that their customers understood that the go-kart service is an independent entertainment experience and not an official product of Nintendo. They argued that they were not providing video games, but operated in a different market, which provided physical go-kart rentals to the tourists.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court examined the complete conduct of MariCar to determine whether they were creating confusion among ordinary consumers. It was emphasised that the assessment of trademark infringement and unfairness should be considered on the basis of the total impression that the business has created instead of just focusing on the words.
The court observed that,
The name “MariCar” is closely similar to Mario-Kart in appearance as well as in pronunciation, i.e., phonetic similarity was seen.
The character costumes used reinforced that there is an association with Nintendo’s franchise.
MariCar’s promotions showed too many images and themes reminiscent of Nintendo’s intellectual property.
The court concluded that MariCar’s business was designed to gain capital from the popularity of Nintendo. There was a strong likelihood that the consumers believed that MariCar is directly connected to Nintendo.
The Court held that MariCar’s conduct amounted to unfair competition. It took advantage of Nintendo’s goodwill and reputation.
Decision:
The Court gave its decision in favour of Nintendo and ordered MariCar to cease using this name and character-themed branding that resembles Nintendo. Promotion activities were ordered to cease, and ¥50M damages were to be given to Nintendo.
Significance of the Case:
This case reinforced the principle that businesses cannot avoid liability just by making small changes in a famous trademark. It highlighted the strong protection of trademarks and fictional characters. Expanded UCPA to services. Warned tourists ops on trademark echoes.
