Pokémon leaks: request for removal and IP warning - EU trade mark dispute: WARDOGS v. WATCH DOGS

Pokémon leaks: request for removal and IP warning.

The Pokémon Company (TPC), which manages the Pokémon franchise worldwide and is jointly owned by Nintendo, Game Freak and Creature, has requested that new posts disseminating unannounced material from future games be removed from social networks. Among the accounts flagged by the community is Centro Leaks, which claims to have received a takedown notice from TPC's Chief Operating Officer, Takato Utsunomiya, requesting the deletion of images and data. However, the account has kept some of the content online, intensifying the debate over the authenticity and legal status of what has been shared.

These leaks follow the security breach known as 'Teraleak', which occurred a year ago and exposed a large volume of Game Freak's internal files. Recently, screenshots of design documents, concept art and references to unannounced projects have been posted alongside logos and descriptions that the community attributes to future titles. Frequently cited items include codenames and alleged multi-year release plans. TPC has not confirmed the authenticity of this material, but has requested its removal on the grounds of intellectual property infringement.

From an IP point of view, the legal classification depends on a key question: is the material authentic? If so, the situation would amount to unauthorised disclosure of trade secrets under Directive (EU) 2016/943, i.e. information that is not publicly available, has commercial value and is subject to reasonable measures to keep it confidential. Right holders can seek injunctive relief (including the removal and destruction of materials), damages and publication of the judgment in the event of unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure. Additionally, EU hosts and platforms, which are now subject to the Digital Services Act, must diligently process takedown notices when an infringement of rights is alleged.

However, if some of the content is not original material (for instance, mock-ups, recreations or fan-made works), liability does not disappear; the unauthorised reproduction of characters, logos or distinctive elements can still constitute copyright and, where applicable, trade mark infringement. The quotation or news-reporting exceptions may allow for cautious description and linking when reporting on matters of public interest, but they do not permit the uploading or redistribution of complete protected works, nor the disclosure of confidential documentation.

This situation complicates TPC’s communications strategy for the recently released Pokémon Legends: Z-A and other unannounced projects. At the same time, it reflects Nintendo’s and its affiliates’ established approach to leaks, which involves takedown notices, evidence preservation and, where appropriate, civil and criminal legal action in relevant jurisdictions.

In short. Don't host internal files, full artwork or unannounced logos. If you are reporting on the story, stick to describing what others have posted and make sure you cite your sources. If you receive a takedown notice, seek legal advice, review what you have shared and keep records of what you have published and when you removed it. Until there is official confirmation, assume there are two legal issues: trade secrets if the leak is real and copyright/trade mark issues even if it isn't.

EU trade mark dispute: WARDOGS v. WATCH DOGS

On 15 October 2025, the General Court of the European Union ruled on case T-109/25, concerning an opposition to the EU word mark WARDOGS (no. 018716754).

The dispute dates back to June 2022, when UK company Bulkhead Ltd applied to the EUIPO to register 'WARDOGS' for a wide range of goods and services in Classes 9 and 41 of the Nice Classification. The first class covered video game software and related applications, while the second class covered non-downloadable online games, as well as the organisation of competitions and e-sports. The French company Ubisoft Entertainment opposed the application, based on its earlier mark WATCH DOGS (no. 011372471), which covers similar software and media in Class 9, as well as entertainment services in Class 41 involving online games and tournaments.

At first instance, the Opposition Division upheld Ubisoft’s opposition and refused to register WARDOGS for almost all the goods and services claimed in Classes 9 and 41. The Division found a high degree of similarity and significant proximity between the signs. Only Class 9 goods such as sunglasses, their accessories and magnets were excluded due to a lack of connection. After an appeal was made, the Fourth Board of Appeal upheld this decision, ruling that the structural and substantial similarities between the signs and specifications would lead to a likelihood of confusion for the Spanish-speaking public, both general and professional, with a medium to high level of attention.

The UK company Bulkhead brought the case before the General Court of the European Union, which upheld the EUIPO’s decision in full. First, the Court emphasised that many of the goods and services in Classes 9 and 41 are either identical or similar. The objective overlap of software, content, and video game services means that the marks are in the same marketing channels and before the same public, increasing the risk that they are perceived as having a common commercial origin.

In the visual comparison, the Court stressed the structural similarities at the beginning and end of the words, particularly between 'war' and 'dogs'. This shared sequence shapes the overall impression formed by the average consumer and is not offset by the differences between 'war' and 'watch'. Likewise, a medium degree of phonetic similarity was found due to the shared initial sound 'wa' and the common ending 'dogs'. The variations between the consonant 'r' in 'WARDOGS' and the 'tch' cluster in 'WATCH' do not change this result, as the ear retains the shared beginning and ending.

Although Bulkhead argued that the beginning of a sign is more important, the Court rejected this, stating that it is not an absolute rule and that a global assessment must be made. Therefore, the similarity of key elements in the signs prevails over the initial differences. For these reasons, the court dismissed the appeal, upheld the refusal to register 'WARDOGS' for the relevant goods and services, and since no hearing had been held, ordered each party to bear its own costs.