I honestly thought he was named after the vacuum company because he sucks up stuff like a vacuum cleaner does.

  • Godort@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    ·
    21 hours ago

    This case was absolutely wild too.

    Universal was arguing that Nintendo infringed on their brand, as they have done with a bunch of companies in the past.

    Those companies typically just adhered to C&D rather than fight it, but Kirby was sure he could win it.

    Kirby spent the first part of the case arguing all the ways that Donkey Kong was different from King Kong, and then closed his argument by citing a case between Universal and RKO pictures(The studio that made King Kong), where they themselves had successfully argued that King Kong was in the public domain.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    20 hours ago

    So…RKO Pictures makes king kong. Universal pictures then gets sued by RKO, and Universal argues it’s in the public domain.

    Then universal tries sueing Nintendo to protect their IP. Nintendo then shows King Kong is in public domain.

    Soooooo…if I make Danky Kang, as a new IP, who wants to bet Nintendo would instantly sue me?

    • KuromiGirl04@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Yeah, there is a US Vacuum cleaner company called KIRBY.

      I don’t know whether they’re still in business or of they’ve gone defunct.

      But yeah, Kirby is also a vacuum company.

      And apparently Nintendo’s cute little pink Blob being named Kirby like the vacuum cleaner is purely coincidental.

    • SendMePhotos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      Those vacuums sucked… …in a bad way.

      They were very heavy and kind of awkward. They did have a lot of suction and utility but all of the add-ons/attachments made it stupid annoying to store and use.