Lessons from the Palworld vs Pokémon Debate: What Developers Need to Know

The recent release of Palworld has sparked a heated debate about its similarities to Pokémon, with many fans and players drawing comparisons between the two games. However, according to legal experts, the issue is not as clear-cut as it seems. Peter Lewin, a partner at Wiggin, notes that while players may feel that one game has taken too much inspiration from another, this is a different question from whether IP infringement has occurred from a legal perspective. The two games have similarities, but they also have distinct differences in terms of gameplay, combat mechanics, and survival elements. Lewis Silkin's head of interactive entertainment, Nick Allan, observes that the excitement around the games has led to a conflation of distinct legal issues, making it essential to clarify what would be in dispute if legal action were to take place. Intellectual property is a collection of rights that protect different elements of proprietary material, including trademarks, copyright, design rights, and patents. Different jurisdictions have varying rules on IP, and the fact that Palworld is available in over 100 countries adds complexity to the situation. Richard Hoeg, managing partner of The Hoeg Law firm, suggests that Palworld's creature designs are trying to evoke the feeling of Pokémon, which is not inherently illegal. However, the line between influence and infringement is not clear, and it is up to the courts to decide whether the designs are substantially similar. The point that all three lawyers emphasize is that copyright law does not protect ideas, but instead expressions of ideas. Gameplay mechanics, such as catching monsters, are not protected by copyright, but the specific appearance of characters or objects will be. Palworld's Pal Spheres bear no resemblance to Pokéballs, so they are unlikely to cause issues for the developer. The lawyers also note that assessing whether a developer has infringed on another's copyright involves answering three questions: is the original work protected by copyright, has the alleged infringer copied a substantial part of the original work, and are there any available defenses, such as parody or fair use? The defense used would depend on the country where legal action was taken. Meanwhile, Allan suggests that developers could use the registered design system in the UK and EU to protect their IP. The Pokémon Company has issued a statement emphasizing that it will investigate and take measures to address any acts that infringe on its IP rights. The lawyers agree that the legal position is nuanced and complicated, and it is hard to predict how different IP owners will react when they feel another work is too close to the bone. Hoeg believes that there is no reason to believe Palworld actually infringes on Pokémon, even if the character designs are similar. The takeaway for developers is that creating something that resembles an established IP can be a dangerous game to play, and they should be cautious when developing characters or elements that are similar to those of an established IP. Lewin warns that making characters too similar can lead to copyright infringement, while making them too different may not be recognizable as inspiration. Allan suggests that developers should focus on creating compelling game mechanics that are generally free to use and avoid using IP assets that are easily protected by others, such as character designs. Ultimately, the lawyers conclude that developers should not take broad lessons on intellectual property matters from any given conflict point, as the specific facts and circumstances of each case will determine the outcome.