|
''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.'' was a case heard by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by Judge Robert W. Sweet. In their complaint, Universal Studios alleged that Nintendo's video game ''Donkey Kong'' was a trademark infringement of ''King Kong'', the plot and characters of which Universal claimed for their own. Nintendo argued that Universal had themselves proved that ''King Kong''s plot and characters were in the public domain in ''Universal City Studios, Inc. v. RKO General, Inc.'' Sweet ruled that Universal had acted in bad faith by threatening Nintendo's licensees and that it had no right over the name ''King Kong'' or the characters and story. He further held that there was no possibility for consumers to confuse Nintendo's game and characters with the ''King Kong'' films and their characters. Universal appealed the case, but the verdict was upheld. The case was an enormous victory for Nintendo, which was still a newcomer to the U.S. market. The case established Nintendo as a major player in the industry and arguably gave the company the confidence that it could compete with the giants of American media.〔Sheff 127.〕 The case was selected as #20 on GameSpy's list of the "25 Dumbest Moments in Gaming". ==Background== In 1982, Sid Sheinberg, the president of MCA and Universal City Studios and a seasoned attorney, was trying to find a way to get his company into the booming video game market.〔Sheff 123.〕 In April, he learned of the success of Nintendo's ''Donkey Kong'' video game and sent Robert Hadl, vice president of legislative matters, to investigate. Hadl's analysis was that ''Donkey Kong''s storyline was based on that of ''King Kong'' and was thus an infringement of Universal's rights to that film's characters and scenario.〔Kent 211.〕 Sheinberg also learned of a licensing agreement between Nintendo and Coleco, a producer of home video game consoles. Sheinberg scheduled a meeting with Coleco president Arnold Greenberg on April 27, 1982, ostensibly to discuss possible investment in Coleco. Instead, Universal admonished Greenberg for copyright infringement and threatened to sue if the ColecoVision shipped with ''Donkey Kong'' as planned. The next day, Universal telexed Coleco and Nintendo giving them 48 hours to cease marketing ''Donkey Kong'', to dispose of all ''Donkey Kong'' inventory, and to hand over all records of profits made from the game.〔Kent 212.〕 On May 5, Greenberg agreed to pay Universal royalties of 3% of ''Donkey Kong''s net sale price, amounting to six million units and worth about $4.6 million.〔Sheff 121.〕 A week later, he signed an agreement that stated that Universal would not sue Coleco as long as Coleco paid royalties.〔 Meanwhile, Hadl learned that Tiger Electronics had licensed ''King Kong'' for a handheld game. He decided that Universal's earnings from it were too low and that the license's granting of exclusive rights to Tiger would impede the agreement with Coleco. On May 4, Sheinberg sent Tiger a mailgram demanding that they send their game in for further approval.〔Kent 213.〕 Universal reviewed it and decided that ''King Kong'' was too similar to ''Donkey Kong''. On May 8, Steinberg revoked Tiger's license, but Tiger president O. R. Rissman refused to give in and challenged Universal's claim that it owned the ''King Kong'' name.〔Kent 214.〕 Nintendo's attorney (and future board member) Howard Lincoln was at first inclined to settle for $5–7 million.〔Sheff 119.〕 Eventually, however, he decided to fight, reassuring the head of the company's U.S. division, Minoru Arakawa, that this was a sign that Nintendo had made it big.〔Sheff 117.〕 On May 6, Arakawa and Lincoln met with Coleco and Universal in Los Angeles. Hadl reiterated his stance that ''Donkey Kong'' infringed Universal's rights to ''King Kong''. Lincoln countered that Nintendo had discovered many unlicensed uses of ''King Kong''s name and characters and that Universal's trademark on these was less than 10 years old. In private, Greenberg tried to persuade Nintendo to sign a licensing agreement; he had not told them that he had already done so.〔 By the end of the meeting, Hadl agreed to send a chain of title to Nintendo regarding Universal's ownership of the ''King Kong'' name. When this failed to materialize in the next few weeks, Lincoln prodded Universal again. They responded with more demands for royalties.〔 Lincoln researched the merits of Universal's claims to ''King Kong'' and deemed them untenable.〔Kent 215.〕 Nintendo called for another meeting, which was set up for May 21. Believing that Nintendo was finally caving,〔 Sheinberg intimated that Nintendo might expect future business from Universal if they agreed to settle the matter. Lincoln only repeated Nintendo's position that Universal had no legal basis to make any threats.〔 He recalled later, Mr. Arakawa and I decided that we would go down and simply tell him () that we've come to tell you to your face that we would pay you if we thought we were liable, but we had done our homework and we were not prepared to pay anything because we hadn't done anything wrong. We just wanted to essentially look him in the face and tell him that. It seemed the honorable thing to do. Knowing that a court battle lay ahead, Hadl contacted Rissman, the errant Tiger licensee, to compromise on the handheld ''King Kong'' game. Hadl wanted to remove the exclusivity provision of the license and to distinguish the handheld game from ''Donkey Kong'' so as to weaken any potential counterclaims that one of Universal's licensees had violated Nintendo's intellectual property rights. Rissman complied, giving the hero a fireman hat, replacing barrel graphics with bombs, and making the game platforms straight instead of crooked. This design was approved in early June.〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd.」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|