## Facts

- Plaintiffs owned and licensed copyrights and related intellectual property in the video game Tetris, including its audiovisual display.
- Defendant developed and distributed an iPhone game, Mino, after failing to obtain a Tetris license.
- Plaintiffs alleged Mino was designed to look and feel like Tetris and copied Tetris’s audiovisual appearance rather than only its rules.
- Plaintiffs sued for (1) copyright infringement and (2) Lanham Act trade dress infringement/false designation of origin, along with state-law unfair competition claims; unjust enrichment was withdrawn.
- After DMCA takedown notices, Apple removed Mino and Mino Lite from its App Store; the parties proceeded to litigation.
- The case came to the court on cross-motions for summary judgment addressed to the federal copyright and federal trade dress claims.
- The court found extensive visual similarity, including a 10-by-20 vertical playfield, the same seven tetromino shapes composed of four square blocks, similar bright colors and bordered blocks, identical falling/locking behavior, line-clearing and downward collapse, and similar interface elements (e.g., next-piece preview and shadow/ghost piece).

## Issues

1. Whether Mino infringed copyright by copying protectable expressive audiovisual elements of Tetris, rather than unprotectable ideas, rules, or functional gameplay mechanics.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ claimed trade dress in Tetris’s overall visual appearance was protectable (nonfunctional and distinctive) and, if so, whether Mino created a likelihood of confusion under the Lanham Act.
3. Whether defendant established a fair use defense to copying Tetris’s audiovisual elements.

## Decision

- Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted on the federal copyright claim.
- Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment was granted on the federal Lanham Act trade dress claim.
- Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.
- The court did not grant summary judgment on the remaining state-law claims because the motions did not fully address them.

## Legal Principles

- Copyright protects a video game’s audiovisual expression, not abstract rules, methods of play, or general gameplay ideas.
- In the Third Circuit, substantial similarity in protectable expression may be assessed using the abstraction–filtration–comparison test: separate elements, filter out unprotectable matter (ideas, functionality, merger, scènes à faire), then compare remaining expression.
- Merger does not bar protection where an idea (e.g., a falling-block puzzle) can be expressed in multiple ways; selecting Tetris’s particular shapes, colors, borders, playfield proportions, and arrangement may remain protectable expression.
- For Lanham Act trade dress, a plaintiff must show (1) nonfunctionality, (2) distinctiveness (including secondary meaning), and (3) likelihood of confusion.
- A trade dress is not functional merely because it appears during product use; functionality turns on whether features are essential to use or purpose, or affect cost or quality.
- Fair use is disfavored where copying is commercial, non-transformative, takes a substantial portion of the work’s core expressive elements, and risks market substitution.

## Conclusion

The court held that defendant’s close replication of Tetris’s specific audiovisual presentation—beyond general falling-block gameplay—constituted copyright infringement and also infringed Tetris’s nonfunctional, distinctive trade dress by creating a near-identical overall visual impression likely to confuse consumers about authorization or affiliation.


Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc., 863 F. Supp. 2d 394 (D.N.J. 2012)