JPO refuses Nintendo’s touchscreen monster-capture patent application - EU trade mark dispute: go VEGE & végé

JPO refuses Nintendo’s touchscreen monster-capture patent application

In previous blogposts, we have looked at the patent dispute between Japanese video game companies Nintendo Co., Ltd. and The Pokémon Company, and Japanese developer Pocketpair, Inc., creators of Palworld. A related patent application has now been refused by the Japan Patent Office (JPO).

In a decision dated 7 July 2026, the JPO refused Japanese Patent Application No. 2026-019762, which was filed jointly by Nintendo and The Pokémon Company. The application concerns a touchscreen game in which players can move a character, capture creatures, and select commands during combat. Although the application belongs to the wider patent family involved in the dispute, it is separate from the patents that were considered by the Tokyo District Court. The refusal does not invalidate those patents or determine whether Palworld infringes them. The decision only concerns whether this additional, touchscreen-focused application can be granted.

In April 2026, the JPO issued a Notice of Reasons for Refusal. After reviewing the applicant's response, the examiner upheld the objections and rejected the application under Article 29(2) of the Japanese Patent Act. Under this provision, a patent cannot be granted if someone with relevant technical knowledge could have easily developed the invention using information already available to the public. The examiner relied partly on a YouTube video from 2013 entitled Pokémon Generations – 3D Indie Pokémon Gameplay. The video showcased an unofficial, fan-created game in which players could capture and utilise Pokémon-style characters. The JPO also considered material on touchscreen controls, mobile versions of computer games, and the capture of creatures during combat. The JPO concluded that these sources rendered several elements of the claimed system obvious.

Nintendo argued that the examiner should not rely on the video because the fan-made game in question allegedly infringed Pokémon-related copyright. However, the JPO rejected this argument. Under Japanese patent law, publicly available information is not excluded from the prior art simply because its creation or publication may infringe copyright. Therefore, whether the game was authorised was separate from whether the video disclosed features relevant to patentability. Furthermore, the applicants objected to the use of names such as 'Pikachu', 'Bulbasaur', and 'Poké Ball' in the examiner’s description of the video game. They argued that this could imply that the game was an official Pokémon product. However, the examiner replied that these names were only used to identify the characters and objects depicted. Their use did not recognise the game as authorised or affect the assessment of the inventive step.

The applicants also argued that gameplay footage only shows images and cannot reveal how the underlying computer program works. The JPO disagreed. It found that the on-screen actions, together with the narration, explained how the relevant game elements behaved. Therefore, the video could be compared with the patent claims, even though it contained no source code or technical description. Moreover, the examiner noted that adapting existing computer game controls for use on a touchscreen would have been obvious. Mobile versions of games such as ARK: Survival Evolved and PUBG were cited as examples of adaptations between computer and touchscreen platforms. The same line of reasoning was applied to features such as capturing creatures during combat, locking onto a target, and collecting objects.

The JPO did not object to all the claims. At that stage, it found no reason to refuse claims 4–5, 10–11, 16–17 and 22–23. However, objections remained against the main claims and several dependent claims, meaning that the application could not be granted in its current form. Nintendo and The Pokémon Company now have the option of requesting an appeal trial before the JPO within three months of receiving the decision.

EU trade mark dispute: go VEGE & végé’

On 15 July 2026, in Case T-677/25, the General Court considered whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the figurative sign go VEGE and the earlier word mark végé’. 

The dispute arose after Portuguese company Desimo, Lda applied to register go VEGE (no. 018025663). The application covered, among other goods and services, products and food retail services in Classes 29, 30 and 35, including vegetarian products, meat substitutes, dairy products, alternatives to dairy products, prepared meals, snacks and food retail services.

However, German company Topas GmbH opposed the application on the basis of the earlier EU word mark végé’ (no. 016253015). This mark was filed in 2017 and registered in 2020 for goods in Classes 29 and 30, including meat alternatives, non-dairy cheese substitutes and plant-based ready meals. The opposition was based on Article 8(1)(b) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation concerning the likelihood of confusion between an earlier mark and a later application.

The EUIPO Opposition Division upheld the opposition in part. Then, the Fifth Board of Appeal confirmed that there was a likelihood of confusion. Despite its weak distinctive character, it found that “vege” was the dominant element of the applied-for mark because of its size and central position. In contrast, “go” was smaller and could be understood as a promotional invitation, while the green circle, branch and leaves were decorative elements typically associated with ecological products. Furthermore, the Board found an above-average degree of visual and phonetic similarity between the marks, as well as at least an average degree of conceptual similarity for English-speaking consumers. As the goods and services were identical or similar and the relevant public had a low to average level of attention, the Board concluded that the differences between the signs were insufficient to avoid confusion.

Desimo challenged the Board of Appeal’s decision before the General Court, arguing that it had focused almost exclusively on “vege” and had not given sufficient weight to the word “go” or the figurative elements of its mark.

The General Court rejected this argument. It found that the Board of Appeal had compared the signs as a whole but was entitled to give greater weight to their dominant elements. Although the Board had not expressly referred to “go” in the visual comparison, the Court held that this omission did not amount to an error. While “vege” had a weak distinctive character, its size and central position meant that it was the element that consumers were most likely to notice and remember. In contrast, “go” was smaller and could be interpreted by English-speaking consumers as an invitation to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle. The green circle, branch and leaves were decorative elements typically associated with ecological or environmentally friendly products and were therefore of secondary importance.

The Court also agreed that the signs displayed an above-average degree of visual and phonetic similarity. The accents and apostrophe in végé’ were insufficient to offset the common element “vege”, particularly for consumers whose languages do not use such accents. The signs were also conceptually similar to at least an average degree for English-speaking consumers because both referred to the vegetarian nature of the goods, even though go VEGE also invited consumers to adopt a vegetarian lifestyle.

Taking into account the similarity between the signs and the identity or similarity of the goods and services, as well as the low to average level of attention of the relevant consumers, the Court concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion and dismissed Desimo’s action.