Home News Nintendo Loses Trademark Battle to Costa Rican Supermarket Over Super Mario Name

Nintendo Loses Trademark Battle to Costa Rican Supermarket Over Super Mario Name

Author : Lucas Mar 18,2025

A Costa Rican supermarket, "Súper Mario," has unexpectedly triumphed in a trademark battle against Nintendo. The dispute centered on the supermarket's use of the name, which Nintendo argued infringed on its globally recognized "Super Mario" brand. However, the supermarket successfully defended its trademark by proving the name was a genuine combination of its business type ("súper," meaning supermarket in Spanish) and the first name of its manager, Mario.

The trademark was initially registered in 2013 by Charito, the supermarket owner's son, following his university graduation. Nintendo challenged the trademark's 2024 renewal, citing infringement on its iconic video game character's brand.

Super Mario SupermarketImage: x.com

The supermarket's legal team, led by advisor and accountant Jose Edgardo Jimenez Blanco, countered that the name wasn't an attempt to capitalize on Nintendo's intellectual property. They successfully argued that the name was a straightforward and descriptive combination referencing the supermarket's nature and its manager's name.

Charito expressed immense relief and gratitude towards Jimenez Blanco, stating, "I am really grateful to my accountant and legal advisor, Jose Edgardo Jimenez Blanco, who managed the registration and following trademark battle. We were considering giving up. How could we ever take on such a massive business entity? But Edgardo and I weren't going to back down, and we got some positive news a few days ago. 'Súper Mario' will never go away."

While Nintendo holds exclusive rights to the "Super Mario" trademark across various product categories in many countries, including video games, clothing, and toys, this case highlights the unforeseen challenges in protecting intellectual property, even for industry giants. The ruling underscores the complexities of trademark disputes, particularly when established brands confront smaller businesses with legitimate claims to a similar name. This case serves as a reminder that even the most powerful brands can face unexpected legal setbacks.