-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Nintendo says that custom Etika Joy-Cons can't be sold [Up: seller criticised by Etika’s family. Used name without permission. See threadmarks.]
- Thread starter Slash
- Start date
This seems more like an action to "protect" the brand and what it stands for.
I would not be surprised if this has something to do with the Nintendo brand being associated with the sensitive subject of Etika's passing.
I would not be surprised if this has something to do with the Nintendo brand being associated with the sensitive subject of Etika's passing.
Yeah, probably just the trademarked terms and logos is at issue... A company has to defend these rights, or else they lose the right to protect it (i.e. a company might be allowed to break trademark if they can show that Nintendo knew of their use of a product and opted not to take action).
It's a bit weird to me in this case because they're not some third-party controller manufacturer piggybacking off the Switch logo and Joy-Con name. They're actual Joy-Cons.
correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like the issue is that they are repurposing actual JoyCons and reselling them? Wonder if they could pivot to just creating joy con vinyl skins and carry on that way.
Nintendo's obligation to protect a right it may later seek to enforce does not require it to go after every single group that uses their trademark. Many other companies are far less "vigilant" (I'd call it petty) than Nintendo and yet have not had any trouble enforcing their property rights when they feel they need to. Accordingly, it's not a defence of Nintendo's behavior to raise this because their interpretation of what the law requires them to do - this assumes that you should take them at their word that they actually believe this, which I don't - is way out of whack with reality.
Wait, I think there's more to the story here. As others have said, you can buy custom Joy-Cons from many places. I've bought some from Colorware and Controller Chaos for example.
I believe the person that made these Joy-Cons is @Cptn_Alex on Twitter, based on the profile pic from the image. He recently was contacted by Nintendo to stop his custom work because he did an Indiegogo campaign called the Pro Controller Project where he painted controllers for each Smash Bros character and sold them. I of course don't know exactly what Nintendo told him, but I think he's not selling any custom Nintendo stuff because of that incident.
I believe the person that made these Joy-Cons is @Cptn_Alex on Twitter, based on the profile pic from the image. He recently was contacted by Nintendo to stop his custom work because he did an Indiegogo campaign called the Pro Controller Project where he painted controllers for each Smash Bros character and sold them. I of course don't know exactly what Nintendo told him, but I think he's not selling any custom Nintendo stuff because of that incident.
Quality control and product liability issues could also arise too...
I doubt it's a trademarked term or logo problem, since ya know scalpers exist. Otherwise Sony and MS would be shutting down ebay and stockx in an instant. How would anyone sell used games?
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but it really seems like first sale doctrine applies here if these are real Joycons that are getting resold.
en.wikipedia.org
I'm not a legal expert by any means, but it really seems like first sale doctrine applies here if these are real Joycons that are getting resold.
First-sale doctrine - Wikipedia
Yeah, I could see how adding Nintendo IP characters to the Joy-Cons without permission would cause an issue.
Yeah I don't get how they'd tell this guy to stop but Controller Chaos is still in business.
https://www.controllerchaos.com/custom-nintendo-switch-controllers.html
https://www.controllerchaos.com/custom-nintendo-switch-controllers.html
I'm waiting for the slow roll of posters who actually have a grip on reality.
It's unfortunate but you can't sell unlicensed products and use Nintendo's trade marks. Yes there are tons of people who make customs and I'm sure Nintendo slowly goes thru them. Companies go after random ones all the times to prove that they can.
Not saying it's right but legally you can't sell and use others trademarks
Not saying it's right but legally you can't sell and use others trademarks
This is quite interesting because it is kind of hypocritical to go after these companies and yet don't target others that sell joy-con skins or joy-con shells.
I'm not saying this should give Nintendo more ammo, but I'm saying that I don't get the logic of going after one and disregarding the other.
I'm not saying this should give Nintendo more ammo, but I'm saying that I don't get the logic of going after one and disregarding the other.
If I buy a bottle of coca-cola from the grocery store, I'm allowed to later sell it to my friend. I can even scribble on it and sell it for a considerable markup.
Can they really stop replacement shells from being produced? Replacement shells for pretty much every handheld have been made. See PSP, Gameboy Pocket, Color etc....
This is a shitty look for Nintendo. They should be happy people are buying new joycons, as they are just replacing the external (not internals) of the joycons.
This is a shitty look for Nintendo. They should be happy people are buying new joycons, as they are just replacing the external (not internals) of the joycons.
It's really weird that they go after this one seller, out of all the joy-con sellers out there.
Though to be honest, if it weren't for the recent controversies surrounding the Melee and Splatoon competitive events, I'm not sure this would have blown up as much as it has. Nintendo does its fair share of stupid not consumer friendly decisions. Though it seems at times people love to take these decisions and make grand statements about how "evil" they are now. It's a bit hyperbolic.
Though to be honest, if it weren't for the recent controversies surrounding the Melee and Splatoon competitive events, I'm not sure this would have blown up as much as it has. Nintendo does its fair share of stupid not consumer friendly decisions. Though it seems at times people love to take these decisions and make grand statements about how "evil" they are now. It's a bit hyperbolic.
You can technically sell whatever you want. You can't advertise selling things and use other people's trade marks though.
Depends on those that hit their radar first, as I said in my other post .... these particular items may have been more popular / getting attention and this brought it to Nintendo's attention before others.
I maybe wrong and Nintendo are being malicious but I highly doubt it, they attack copyright infringement like whack a mole .... one with its head up highest gets hit first.
It's evil but they often just pick up the occasional person breaking the law as it usually has a trickle effect with others not wanting to risk it.
Like I guarantee the thing is like we go after someone selling for charity, and that will make people stop as we have shown we are willing to go after anyone
I thought one of the big things here is you were buying full joycons that have been customized, not just skins or shells that the consumer applies themselves.
Yeah, they should have definitely sold the customization service instead of selling joycons or even customized shells, as even selling those could get them into trouble without proper licensing as Nintendo owns that design.
I can't "technically sell whatever I want", but I definitely can sell my custom cokes and I can advertise it on twitter, logo and all, without violating any copyright.
Just because Nintendo claims they have a basis in law to tell them to stop does not mean they actually have a basis in law to tell them to stop.
Sony & it's fanboys do the same thing with PlayStation. Let's not make everything one-sided.
Plus all companies are in this business for the money no matter who you support.
Last edited:
Oh yeah, this decision isn't anything to cheer. I was just commenting on the emotionally charged language people like to sling around when they're criticizing Nintendo's decisions.
This take makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand how you can say "don't buy from x, buy used instead." You're not really making any kind of difference with that stance. If you're going to boycott, then don't half-ass it.
One of the first examples I can think of is dbrand's controversial Animal Crossing skin, since it quite clearly uses the copyright of Animal Crossing characters and mimics the design of the limited edition Switch. Yet, Nintendo didn't go after that. There are also custom Joy-Con shells that mimic designs of Nintendo's retro consoles, or Nintendo IP, and that didn't get struck down either. It's also quite popular for those who want to customize their own hardware. So Nintendo's stance here doesn't really make any sense.
That's true but there are joy-con skins and shells that use Nintendo's IP, and I have not seen them get taken down despite the legitimate argument that they are using IP without their permission.
NiNtEnDo CaN't Be The BaD GuY Duhh!, yOu KnOw tHeY aRe oNlY TaRgeting tHe PeRson because reasons.
can't you see that they are targeting the only person that is forwarding the funds to charities and mental health help. Like Jesus fucking Christ.
That's fair enough, I have not followed any of these other examples closely and will bow to your greater knowledge. I am just trying to look at it with an outsiders eye with no skin in the game so to speak.
Because if you are standing up for something for moral reasons, finding ways to still use the companies products and not supporting them is kind of half assing it. You either support them or you don't.
Not even surprising any more. We live in a world where ticking legal boxes is more important than letting people avoid catching a deadly virus and users will gleefully defend Nintendo while using the equivalent of a #metoo movement in an attempt to justify it. Im 99% certain some people on this site would not actually care who gets fucked over as long as they get their 2 cents in.
The dialog here has already shifted to criticizing boycott methods so its pretty clear where their heads are at.
This is not how this works. First-sale doctrine covers this; once someone has sold a product, they can't control what you do with it. As much as many corporations would like to extinguish it, and despite the inroads they've made via licensing bullcrap, it's still dominant.
It is real, but it only applies to trademarks, not copyright. There are also a number of legitimate ways to use a trademark without a license. Using a trademark descriptively or for the sake of comparison is one of those, e.g. if you are a reseller of Intel CORE i7s you can describe them as Intel CORE i7s despite that being an unlicensed use of multiple trademarks. Similarly, you could sell an off-brand Joycon charger as Joycon compatible.
The trick with Sonic fan games thing is that giving permission still protects your mark. If you formalize it like with Microsoft's Game Content Usage Rules you're in an excellent situation legally.
This is the appropriate response and the main legal issue here. The Switch logo is trademarked. The logo wasn't already present on the shells and just left alone. They have incorporated the Nintendo Switch logo into their own logo. If Nintendo failed to go after them for this, it could potentially come into play if someone uses the Switch logo on a commercial product in the future and Nintendo sues them.
That's only true to an extent. If you're buying secondhand, then the person gets your money, but you've effectively replaced that person as the one who bought Nintendo's product. So Nintendo sees you as someone who paid for their JoyCons/Switch/etc. Ergo, you made no difference because no money was lost on their end. Would they have preferred that you buy new product? Sure, but again, the alternative of buying used didn't hurt them anyway.
That's why in the case of boycott, go full measure or you're just wasting your time and undermining your own morality.
How many of these unlincensed joycons that have not recieved a C&D by Nintendo have had the actual word joycon on them? just to know
JoyCon is a trademark, the JoyCon symbols are trademarked, and Nintendo's been making the rounds again smacking unlicensed sellers. I think it's an unfortunate coincidence, but ultimately a dumb move on their part.
The only issue from a legal point of view for trademarks where not protecting a trademark can result in loss of the trademark is genericide which is basically when a brand becomes so intertwined with the type of product that it is common for competing products to be referred to that as well. This only happens in extreme cases, such as with terms like aspirin, dry ice, flip phone, and trampoline which were all originally trademarked. I see no foreseeable way that could ever going to happen with Sonic. With Joycons it could possibly happen if companies were selling joycon similar controllers for PC or PS4 or something and calling them Joycons. But these are joycons so I don't think that would be an issue. In general corporations do want to protect their trademarks to the greatest extent possible but not because they're worried about losing them if they don't. More so because not doing so diminishes the value of the trademark which is considered an asset and in effect essentially means they're losing money. Some companies may do the calculation and decide that the good will from allowing some freedom is worth it in the long run, which is probably what SEGA did with allowing non-profit Sonic fan games. Nintendo decided allowing certain customized Joycon sellers would not be worth it, and thus they're shutting them down.
Last edited:
If this were true then why have they not gone after the tons of skins and shells that actually use their IP? In fact, Nintendo has a history of extremely detailed trademarking when it comes to the shape and design of their controllers. So theoretically, they could argue that all shells (regardless of logo use, although there are some that actually uses Nintendo's IP as part of the design. See: Retro shells, or character-specific shells) are infringing on their trademark if they want to. And yet, they don't.
I see this as very hypocritical on Nintendo's part, especially considering that the JoyCon Boys were contributing to charity. So it's not even driven by profit anyway.
They don't care about context. They don't want other people reselling/modifying their stuff/trademarks/IP.
You can get anything on Etsy. I think IP holders just don't have the patience to play whack-a-mole with it.
Nintendo's been doing the exact same thing for decades. I don't understand how people are still surprised/think they'll be the exception. Like, yeah, it's shitty Nintendo is removing this charity thing, but come on people it's like you keep slipping on the same banana peel and act like it's the first time. Stop walking in that direction.
Why not work with them to come up with a solution? You telling me that Nintendo is so busy that they cant have someone look into seeing if this is something they maybe might feel like its worth supporting and figure out how to come to an agreement over vs just shutting that shitdown cause "rulez!"?