Update on Nintendo v. Palworld: US patents enter the dispute - EU trade mark dispute: JET LAG

Update on Nintendo v. Palworld: US patents enter the dispute  

In a previous blog post, we looked at the lawsuit filed by Nintendo and The Pokémon Company against Palworld developer Pocketpair at the Tokyo District Court. Filed in early 2024, they alleged that the game infringed several patents relating to creature capture and combat mechanics. While the dispute has thus far remained within Japan, recent patent filings in the United States suggest that the conflict may expand internationally. 

On 11 February 2025, the United States Patent and Trade mark Office (USPTO) granted Nintendo US patent no. 12220638B2, which describes a gameplay system for capturing creatures in a virtual environment. This patent is related to one granted to Nintendo on 31 December 2024 (no. 12179111B2), and both belong to the same family of patents linked to the Japanese case. 

The December patent distinguishes between a first mode focused on capturing creatures by throwing an object and a second mode focused on launching characters into battle. In contrast, the February patent avoids this distinction by using more abstract terminology, such as 'virtual character' and 'obtaining item', which may allow for a broader interpretation and application to similar gameplay systems. 

However, not all of Nintendo’s patent applications against Palworld have been successful. In December 2024, the USPTO rejected 32 out of 33 claims in application no. 18652883 for a system that allows mounts to be switched seamlessly in real time. Only one claim was deemed patentable if filed separately. Then, in February 2025, a Nintendo attorney requested an interview with the patent examiner to defend the remaining claims. 

At the same time, Nintendo submitted an amendment request for Japanese patent JP7528390, which also concerns real-time mount switching mechanics. The Japan Patent Office approved the amendment, which does not introduce new technical subject matter, but rather reformulates the content using longer, more detailed language. 

While Nintendo has not yet taken legal action in the United States, the registration of these patents suggests that it is a possibility. The company's strategy will likely depend on the outcome of its pending USPTO applications. Meanwhile, Pocketpair continues to argue that Palworld does not infringe Nintendo’s rights and that some of the patents in question may be invalid. 

EU trade mark dispute: JET LAG 

On 23 July 2025, the General Court of the European Union ruled on case T-472/24 concerning the registrability of the word mark 'JET LAG'. 

In October 2023, the US company Summer Fridays LLC filed an application through the Madrid system to register the word mark 'JET LAG' (no. 1760112) in the European Union. This covers a range of cosmetic and personal care products in Class 3 of the Nice Classification, including creams, lotions, masks, gels, exfoliants, and moisturisers for the face and body. However, the EUIPO’s Examination Division partially refused registration on the grounds that 'JET LAG' was a descriptive term under Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, as it directly referred to the intended purpose of the goods, which was to combat the visible physical effects of jet lag on the skin, such as fatigue, dehydration and dullness. The Fifth Board of Appeal upheld the refusal, leading the US company to appeal to the General Court. 

Summer Fridays argued that 'jet lag' relates to sleep disturbances and disruption to the circadian rhythm rather than skin-related symptoms, and therefore does not directly describe the function of the goods in question. The company also claimed that the EUIPO had constructed a 'chain of assumptions' to link the sign to the effects of long-haul travel, and cited prior accepted registrations, such as 'JET LAG MASK', as evidence of distinctiveness. Lastly, it stated that skin dehydration during flights is caused by environmental conditions rather than jet lag itself. 

Nevertheless, the General Court pointed out that the relevant public, in particular the average English-speaking consumer in countries such as Ireland and Malta, would immediately associate the term 'jet lag' with the physical state resulting from time zone shifts. This state is characterised by fatigue and visible deterioration in appearance. The products in question were precisely intended to address these external effects. Therefore, although cosmetics do not treat the underlying causes of jet lag, they can be designed to reduce its visible effects, establishing a sufficiently direct and specific connection between the brand and the products. 

Regarding the cited precedent, the Court noted that EUIPO decisions should be based on the Regulation rather than on prior practice, as the latter is not binding. Taking all of this into account, the General Court ruled that the mark 'JET LAG' describes either the characteristics or the intended purpose of the cosmetic goods for which registration was sought, and thus lacks the distinctiveness required under EU trade mark law. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal and ordered Summer Fridays LLC to pay the costs.