863 F. Supp. 2d 394
D.N.J.2012Background
- Tetris Holding owns copyrights to Tetris visuals; Xio copied Tetris to create Mino for iPhone.
- Xio downloaded Tetris app to study it and develop its own Tetris-like game.
- Tetris Holding alleges copyright, trade dress, and related unfair-competition claims against Xio.
- Xio admits copying and intends to profit; disputes only protectable elements, not the game rules.
- Court granted summary judgment for Plaintiffs on copyright and federal trade-dress claims; other counts reserved.
- Evidence includes Xio’s development statements, take-down notices, and side-by-side game comparisons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright protectable expression vs ideas | Tetris’s expression, not the rules, is protectable. | Only non-protected rules/function copied; expressions are unprotectible. | Copyright protection extends to expression; rules/ideas not protected. |
| Merger and scenes a faire applicability | Expression for Tetris is distinct and not merged with ideas. | merger/scenes a faire bar protection for game rules/function. | Merger/scenes a faire do not defeat protectable expression here. |
| Substantial similarity of Tetris and Mino | Mino copies look/feel and expressive elements; highly similar overall. | Only functional aspects copied; not protected expression. | Two games are substantially similar in overall look and feel; infringement found. |
| Trade dress protectability and functionality | Trade dress (colors, layout) is distinctive and non-functional. | Trade dress is functional and/or preempted by copyright law. | Trade dress is protectable; not functional; not preempted; infringement found. |
| Fair use defense | Not applicable given extensive copying. | Only a small portion copied; fair use should apply. | Fair use defense fails; not a small or transformative use. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whelan Assocs., Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986) (idea-expression dichotomy for computer programs)
- Altai, Inc. v. Solid State Logic, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992) (abstraction-filtration-comparison test for substantial similarity)
- Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (approval of abstraction-filtration-comparison approach)
- Midway Mfg. Co. v. Bandai-America, Inc., 546 F. Supp. 125 (D.N.J. 1982) (expressive elements of video games protected; scenes á faire recognized)
- Lotus Development Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995) (menu hierarchy may be unprotectable as a method of operation)
- Data East USA, Inc. v. Epyx, Inc., 862 F.2d 204 (9th Cir. 1988) (scenes á faire and limits of protection in games)
- Taylor Instrument Cos. v. Fawley-Brost Co., 139 F.2d 98 (7th Cir. 1943) (descriptions of art/diagrams not protected when necessary to use)
- Incredible Techs., Inc. v. Virtual Techs., Inc., 400 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2005) (functional elements and hardware-specific considerations)