Delhi High Court Bars Bihar Firm From Using Nintendo India

The Delhi High Court has restrained a Bihar-based company from using the name "Nintendo India Private Limited" in a trademark infringement case. Justice Jyoti Singh granted interim relief to Nintendo Co. Ltd., finding that the company had established a prima facie case for protecting its trademark.

According to Bar and Bench, the court observed that adopting the word "Nintendo" appeared to be an attempt to benefit from the goodwill built by the Japanese gaming company over several decades. It also believed the name could make consumers believe the company was connected to Nintendo.

Nintendo's Global Legacy Supports Trademark Claim

Nintendo told the court it was founded in Japan in 1889. It has since launched consoles including the Nintendo DS, Game Boy, Wii, Nintendo Switch, and Nintendo Switch 2. Its gaming portfolio includes Pokémon, Super Mario Bros., and The Legend of Zelda.

The company argued that "Nintendo" is a coined and distinctive trademark that forms a core part of its identity. Court records cited by the report show the mark has been registered in India since 1983. The High Court also held that Nintendo's reputation extends beyond gaming and qualifies for protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, even for unrelated goods and services.

Investigation Led to Trademark Suit

Nintendo noted it discovered Nintendo India Private Limited in November 2025 after it was registered with the Registrar of Companies in Patna. The company later found that the business was involved in real estate, not gaming or entertainment.

Nintendo sent a cease-and-desist notice in February 2026. One director later said the disputed name had never been used commercially and agreed to a permanent injunction. The other defendants did not participate in the court proceedings.

The ruling follows another gaming trademark decision by the Delhi High Court. In WinZO Games Private Limited v. https://vinzogame.com & Anr. (2024), the court permanently restrained the use of the "VinZO" and "VinZOgame" marks after finding they were deceptively similar to WinZO's registered trademarks and likely to confuse consumers.

Collectively, the decisions reinforce judicial protection for well-known gaming brands against unauthorized commercial use and trademark dilution.