Editing List of controversies

From the Super Mario Wiki, the Mario encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

Latest revision Your text
Line 113: Line 113:


Nintendo debunked these claims by vouching that Universal had won the rights to produce a sequel, claiming that the ''King Kong'' franchise was in the public domain and that the likelihood of confusing ''Donkey Kong'' with ''King Kong'' was low. Nintendo had also discovered the attempt by Tiger and Universal to create a ''King Kong'' video game and claimed that this was an infringement on ''Donkey Kong''.<ref>https://openjurist.org/746/f2d/112#fn2</ref>
Nintendo debunked these claims by vouching that Universal had won the rights to produce a sequel, claiming that the ''King Kong'' franchise was in the public domain and that the likelihood of confusing ''Donkey Kong'' with ''King Kong'' was low. Nintendo had also discovered the attempt by Tiger and Universal to create a ''King Kong'' video game and claimed that this was an infringement on ''Donkey Kong''.<ref>https://openjurist.org/746/f2d/112#fn2</ref>
This is where [https://wikirby.com/Kirby Kirby]got his name, because the people at Nintendo were still deciding a name.


The district court ruled in favor of Nintendo, indicating that Universal did not own the ''King Kong'' franchise and that the two franchises were hardly similar. Judge Sweet stated that the cease-and-desist letters sent by Universal allowed Nintendo to receive compensation, and that Tiger's ''King Kong'' video game was a direct infringement of ''Donkey Kong''. Nintendo opted to receive compensation and was awarded $1.8 million.<ref>https://thegaminghistorian.com/universal-vs-nintendo-case/</ref> Universal appealed the decision but lost again.
The district court ruled in favor of Nintendo, indicating that Universal did not own the ''King Kong'' franchise and that the two franchises were hardly similar. Judge Sweet stated that the cease-and-desist letters sent by Universal allowed Nintendo to receive compensation, and that Tiger's ''King Kong'' video game was a direct infringement of ''Donkey Kong''. Nintendo opted to receive compensation and was awarded $1.8 million.<ref>https://thegaminghistorian.com/universal-vs-nintendo-case/</ref> Universal appealed the decision but lost again.

Please note that all contributions to the Super Mario Wiki are considered to be released under the Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license (see MarioWiki:Copyrights for details). If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel Editing help (opens in new window)

This page is a member of 1 meta category: