Nintendo Files Lawsuit Against Genki Over Unofficial Switch 2 Mockups at CES 2025

In a significant legal move, Nintendo has launched a lawsuit against accessory manufacturer Genki, focusing on trademark infringement, unfair competition, and false advertising. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, stems from Genki revealing 3D-printed mockups of the Nintendo Switch 2 and advertising accessories purportedly compatible with the unreleased console. The controversy began at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2025, where Genki showcased these mockups. Reports from the event indicated that Genki CEO Edward Tsai claimed his company had insider access to the Switch 2, a statement that has since been disputed by Nintendo. This mockup, essentially acting as a sneak peek into the yet-to-be-announced hardware, failed to sit well with Nintendo, which views such actions as a blatant infringement on its intellectual property rights. Nintendo's lawsuit details an extensive timeline, alleging that Genki's misrepresentations began as early as December 2024, leading to media confusion and undermining the excitement surrounding the official unveiling of the console. Genki's actions included tweeting about its upcoming accessories before making its CES presentation, where it highlighted its confidence in having a legitimate product and incorporating Nintendo's trademarks. Moreover, after receiving pressure from Nintendo, Genki continued its promotional efforts unhindered, including the launch of a 'Genki Direct' video that coincided with Nintendo's own announcement for the Switch 2. This not only muddied the waters about the relationship between Genki and Nintendo but also cast doubt on the legitimacy of Genki's claims regarding their accessories' compatibility with the Switch 2. Nintendo's move highlights its commitment to safeguarding its brand and ensuring that consumers are not misled by third-party products claiming association with its proprietary technology. The case carries the potential to set vital precedents for handling intellectual property within the gaming industry, particularly in how accessory manufacturers engage with both the community and major corporations. Legal experts suggest that such lawsuits could deter other manufacturers from unauthorized speculation regarding unreleased products, emphasizing the importance of ethical practices in product promotion. As the case unfolds, it will be interesting to see how the court interprets Genki's actions and the consequences that may follow. The legal battle may perhaps send a strong message to other companies about overstepping boundaries in the burgeoning gaming accessory market.