How the “Mickey Mouse Defense” May Save the Horizon Ripoff Game

by

Tencent and Sony are potentially heading to court over the new game, Light of Motiram. Sony claims the game closely copies its Horizon series. The games share several similarities, including similar character designs, open-world survival gameplay, and robotic creatures that players battle.

Tencent is facing a lawsuit from Sony, who claims their game infringes on Sony’s copyrights and trademarks. If Sony wins, Tencent might have to significantly alter the game’s marketing and character design, potentially causing major problems for its subsidiary, Polaris Quest. However, Tencent is building a surprisingly strong defense centered around the game’s main character, and it involves a comparison to Mickey Mouse.

Tencent’s Mickey Mouse Defense, Explained

Tencent is defending their game, Light of Motiram, by surprisingly pointing to Mickey Mouse. While unusual, their argument could set a significant legal precedent for determining what constitutes copyright infringement in video games. Essentially, Tencent argues that even with similarities to the Horizon series, there’s no rule against having similar characters.

Tencent argues the lawsuit should be dismissed, and a key part of their argument involves a comparison to Disney and Mickey Mouse. Disney uses many different versions of Mickey across its products, but doesn’t have one single trademark covering all of them. Instead, they have trademarks for specific versions. This shows that a character, even a famous one, doesn’t represent the entire brand—it represents a particular product or service. Tencent is suggesting a similar principle applies to their case.

Okay, so here’s how I understand what’s going on with this whole trademark thing. Basically, Tencent is saying that a character needs to be super consistent across all its appearances – think the same look and vibe in every ad and every piece of related stuff – to actually be protected by a trademark. They’re arguing that Aloy from Horizon Dawn hasn’t really been used that consistently outside of the games themselves, so she’s not a strong enough ‘brand’ to claim someone else is copying her. They also point out that things like clothing, accessories, and face paint are pretty common character elements, so just having those similarities doesn’t automatically mean another game is ripping off Aloy. It sounds like they’re saying Horizon Dawn and this other game, Light of Motiram, might be inspired by similar ideas, but that doesn’t mean Motiram is stealing anything specific from Aloy’s design.

Why The Mickey Mouse Defense Might Work Out For Tencent

Tencent admits their advertising may have needed some changes due to the lawsuit, but they defend their game, Light of Motriam, by arguing its main character isn’t similar enough to Aloy. They claim Aloy doesn’t have a consistent, recognizable image that qualifies as a protected brand. Instead, they see their character as simply being similar to Aloy, which they believe isn’t enough to constitute trademark infringement.

The argument is surprisingly strong, particularly considering the recent changes to Disney’s copyright for Mickey Mouse. The original Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie, is now in the public domain, allowing others to create their own versions of that specific design. However, other versions of Mickey still have trademark protection, especially those used as Disney’s logos. This implies that courts won’t recognize a single character design as fully trademarked for an entire company unless that design is consistently used across all versions of the character.

Unlike iconic characters like Mickey Mouse, Aloy from the Horizon series isn’t central to Sony’s overall branding. Even within the Horizon games themselves (two main titles and two spin-offs so far), Aloy’s appearance isn’t consistently used as the main marketing image. If Sony tried to legally establish Aloy as a fully protected brand mascot, it could open the door for them to claim copyright over any similar-looking character. This might explain why Nintendo, when addressing the similarities between Palworld and Pokémon, focused on patents related to how the games are played, rather than brand copyrights. The final decision in this matter is expected next year.

It’s important to think about what a win for Tencent would mean for the gaming industry. It could encourage the creation of games with art styles similar to popular franchises, particularly if those franchises don’t consistently portray their characters the same way. The legal argument, often called the ‘Mickey Mouse defense,’ essentially states that to be protected by copyright, character designs need to be clearly recognizable in all forms of media. If Tencent loses this case, they’ll likely have to significantly change their game, and might even have to cancel it. But if they win, it could set a precedent allowing other games to use similar legal strategies to defend their designs.

Read More

2025-11-09 18:10