Nintendo sues Genki for Switch 2 mockup, proposes 5 counts of wrongdoing, seeks Genki's profits

As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases. TweakTown may also earn commissions from other affiliate partners at no extra cost to you.

Nintendo is suing accessory-maker Genki for alleged trademark infringement.

3

On May 2, Nintendo filed a lawsuit against Human Things, Inc in the Central District courts of California (Nintendo of America Inc. v. Human Things, Inc., 2:25-cv-03960, link). In the complaint, Nintendo alleges, in part, that Genki had used Switch branding in an unauthorized way that confused consumers and potentially damaged Nintendo in numerous ways.

At CES 2025, Genki sparked tons of headlines by showing off its new products on a dummy Switch 2. Genki had said that the mock-up was based on a real Switch 2 system, and affirmed that their accessories would fit the new handheld. Nintendo caught wind of this and shut the rumor down quickly.

Nintendo proposes that courts find five counts of alleged unlawful activity, including: Federal trademark infringement, Federal unfair competition, Federal false advertising, California common law trademark infringement & unfair competition, and statutory unfair competition under California law.

Nintendo asks the courts to permanently stop Genki from making products with the Nintendo Switch trademark, to stop Genki from making false statements around Switch and Switch 2 products, to destroy all said Nintendo Switch branded products, to recover all damages from the counts laid out above, to pay for all attorneys fees, and that Genki's profits earned during this period from the alleged unlawful activities be handed over to Nintendo.

Nintendo also seeks a jury trial.

At the time of writing, Genki is still selling its $185 "Glitch 2" kit.

Genki delivered the following response to the claims on Twitter:

3

Following its initial claims of access to a genuine Nintendo Switch 2 console, Defendant's statements were contradictory and inconsistent, with Defendant later stating that it was never in possession of a console. Nevertheless, Defendant has since maintained its representation to consumers that its accessories will be compatible with the Nintendo Switch 2 upon the console's release.

Ensuring the compatibility of Defendant's accessories would not be possible unless and until Defendant has access to a Nintendo Switch 2 console or to proprietary technical specifications, neither of which Nintendo provided and/or authorized to be provided to Defendant.

Therefore, either

(1) Defendant is not in possession of a genuine console and thus cannot claim compatibility with enough certainty to make its advertising claims in good faith, or

(2) Defendant unlawfully or illicitly obtained an authentic Nintendo Switch 2, or proprietary technical information about the Nintendo Switch 2, prior to the console's release to the public.

Additionally, Defendant has used the NINTENDO SWITCH Marks in connection with the marketing and promotion of its unauthorized Nintendo Switch 2 accessories, misleading consumers into believing that it offers functional, authentic, and authorized Nintendo Switch 2 products.