Bandai/Namco Resolves Ms. Pac-Man Legal Dispute with Retro Console Maker AtGames

Sometimes even longtime business partners can disagree and end up in court. Such is the case with Bandai/Namco, owners of the rights to Pac-Man and Mc Pac-Man and AtGames, which produces retro consoles featuring those games among others.  

This week, the Bandai/Namco AtGames lawsuit has been dismissed a little over a year after it was first filed, once again allowing AtGames to produce retro consoles featuring Pac-Man games.

AtGames is one of the many companies around the world that produces standalone retro consoles with built-in games. Unfortunately, it got into a bit of a sticky situation with its Blast! line of products, a portion of which featured Pac-Man games. Now, a press release from AtGames says that the matter has been dismissed.

The initial filing for the Bandai Namco AtGames lawsuit listed seven complaints and requested a jury trial. Trademark and copyright infringement, counterfeiting, and false advertisement were listed among the complaints, citing both state and federal laws. It also cites multiple failed licensing agreements between Bandai Namco and other parties for both Pac-Man and Ms. Pac-Man.

Going by the initial filing, it appears that Bandai Namco alleges AtGames produced the Pac-Man Blast! products without an appropriate licensing agreement in place. This led to a lawsuit that lasted over a year, but it has since come to a somewhat unceremonious end.

This legal battle is likely over, but the door is open for it to possibly continue should something in the settlement agreement go awry.

Life is like that sometimes. You’re zooming along just trying to gobble up all of the power pellets you can and then some nasty ghosts show up and it’s GAME ON!  When the enemies in your game get LEGAL including things like landlord/tenant matters, contract issues, nuisance ADA claims and even collections, call in the good guy business litigator, Dean Sperling to resolve YOUR matter with YOUR best interests in mind! 

More on the case: