ILYON DYNAMICS LTD. d/b/a ILYON GAMES v. KINGS FORTUNE PTE. LTD.

Background

Ilyon Dynamics Ltd. and BoomBox Games Ltd. brought three claims against Kings Fortune Pte. Ltd.: copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and false designation of origin and unfair competition. The plaintiffs alleged that Kings Fortune copied protected visuals and trademarks from BoomBox’s mobile game Triple Match 3D for use in Kings Fortune’s mobile game Happy Match Café.

The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion. BoomBox allegedly created Triple Match 3D in or around 2021 and owns a United States copyright registration for the game that became effective July 26, 2023. Ilyon owns two United States trademarks and permits BoomBox to use them. The games allegedly include similar objects, color schemes, tutorials, user interfaces, and other features. Kings Fortune allegedly displayed Ilyon’s logo on a coffee-mug graphic in Happy Match Café.

Copyright claim

Kings Fortune argued that BoomBox could not establish copyright ownership because the copyright registration certificate stated that the work was completed in 2015, while the complaint alleged that it was created in or around 2021. The court held that this discrepancy alone did not defeat the copyright claim. It was unclear whether the date appeared on BoomBox’s application and whether BoomBox knew that any information was inaccurate. The court said those issues were more appropriate for summary judgment, when evidence would be available. It therefore declined to find the copyright invalid and held that the registration was sufficient at this stage to allege ownership.

The court also held that BoomBox plausibly alleged copying. Because there was no alleged direct evidence of copying, BoomBox could rely on circumstantial evidence of access to its game and substantial similarity between the games. The court found that BoomBox adequately alleged access through widespread dissemination and alleged similarities in gameplay, user interfaces, and graphics.

Kings Fortune argued that BoomBox alleged only unprotected game mechanics or design concepts rather than copyrightable expression. The court disagreed, reading the complaint to allege copying of visual assets, color schemes, interfaces, audiovisual material, and text embodied in the game. The court explained that copyright protects expression rather than ideas, procedures, or game rules, but concluded that the alleged visuals could constitute protected expression. The court declined to apply an additional copyright analysis that Kings Fortune raised for the first time in its reply brief because that analysis would require facts not yet before the court.

The court further found that BoomBox plausibly alleged substantial similarity under the objective comparison used at the pleading stage. It relied on side-by-side comparisons and specific alleged similarities, including graphics of a small red mug containing brown liquid and one orange and one pink marshmallow. The court disregarded Kings Fortune’s argument that copying the graphic of a mug bearing the Ilyon logo was too minor to be actionable because that argument was first raised in the reply brief.

Trademark and unfair-competition claims

Ilyon alleged that Kings Fortune used Ilyon’s trademarks in commerce without authorization by displaying Ilyon’s logo on a mug in Happy Match Café. Kings Fortune challenged only whether Ilyon adequately alleged a likelihood that consumers would be confused about the games’ source, sponsorship, or affiliation.

The court found the allegation sufficient. It emphasized that the marks on the mugs were alleged to be identical, that both games were three-dimensional object-matching games with similar features and visuals, and that both were distributed through the Android and iOS app stores. Ilyon also alleged that its game’s revenue decreased by an amount approximately matching revenue generated by Kings Fortune’s game after its launch. Although the court recognized that shared app-store distribution alone provided limited support for confusion, it concluded that the allegations as a whole were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court declined to consider arguments about differences between the games’ app-store icons and the allegedly inconspicuous use of Ilyon’s trademarks because those arguments required information outside the complaint and involved factual questions.

Damages requests

The court also addressed Kings Fortune’s remarks concerning the plaintiffs’ requests for damages and punitive damages. Because Kings Fortune did not adequately present a motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), and raised the relevant arguments for the first time in its reply brief, the court denied the motion to strike or dismiss the damages requests, to the extent Kings Fortune had made such a motion.

Disposition

The court DENIED Kings Fortune’s motion to dismiss the complaint. It also DENIED without prejudice both parties’ requests for judicial notice and evidentiary objections because the court did not consider those materials. Kings Fortune was ordered to file an answer by March 11, 2025.