Nintendo and Universal Pictures register copyright for a Donkey Kong project - EU trade mark dispute: I + red heart

Nintendo and Universal Pictures register copyright for a Donkey Kong project 

Over forty years after facing each other in court, Nintendo and Universal Pictures have crossed paths once again, this time as collaborators on the Donkey Kong project. In May 2025, the Untitled Donkey Kong Project: Motion Picture was officially registered with the U.S. Copyright Office, listing Nintendo Studios LLC and Universal Pictures, a division of Universal City Studios LLC, as the parties involved.  

This collaboration is exciting given that Universal sued Nintendo for alleged trade mark infringement in 1983, claiming that Donkey Kong was a copy of King Kong. However, the court ruled in Nintendo’s favour, stating that Universal did not hold exclusive rights to King Kong and that there was no likelihood of confusion. This case played a significant role in Nintendo’s early expansion into the US market. 

In addition, the project's registration aligns with the release of Donkey Kong Bananza for the Nintendo Switch 2 on 17 July 2025, as well as the ongoing expansion of Donkey Kong-themed areas in Universal theme parks. Although there has been no formal announcement regarding the project's content, format, or release date, the registration marks the first legal acknowledgement of its existence. 

EU trade mark dispute: I + red heart 

On 9 July, in joined cases T-304/24, T-305/24 and T-306/24, the General Court of the European Union rejected the application to register a sign consisting of a capital letter 'I' and a red heart as a position mark. 

In 2022, the German company sprd.net AG applied to register three European Union trade marks (no. 018705040, no. 018705044, and no. 018705046 ) as position marks for goods in Class 25 of the Nice Classification, in particular T-shirts, sweatshirts, and jumpers. The sign consisted of the letter 'I' and a red heart in three different positions: on the left side of the chest, on an inner label, and the back of the garment at neck level.  

Both the EUIPO examiner and the Board of Appeal refused the applications, on the basis that the signs lacked distinctive character. They argued that the graphic combination would be perceived as a generic expression, such as 'I love' or 'I like', rather than as an indication of commercial origin. Furthermore, the specific placement of the sign on the clothing did not render it sufficiently distinctive. 

Spred.net appealed against these decisions in the General Court, which confirmed that the sign was not inherently distinctive and that its placement on the clothing was insufficient to identify its source. Furthermore, the Court considered that consumers would not perceive the sign as a trade mark, but rather as a decorative element or a generic promotional message. As a result, the General Court rejected the trade mark registrations.