Medabots arrived in Spain amid a crowded wave of Japanese animated series in 1999, aiming to replicate the global success of Pokémon. It did not achieve the same fate as Digimon. The show aired 52 episodes before fading from view. Years later, a Spaniard named Kevin Comadran remembered a mobile game built around Medabots and registered the trademark in his name after realizing the game had been abandoned in the European Union.
Although the attempt to maintain the Medabots name faded, Comadran Studios could still benefit from the game’s popularity, which had gathered hundreds of thousands of downloads on Android and iPhone stores in recent years.
EL PERIODICO DE ESPAÑA, part of the Prensa Ibérica group, revealed that the Alicante Provincial Court, home to the EU Trademark Court in this country, worked toward an agreement with Imagineer, the Japanese studio behind the worldwide production of the Medabots video game. It is not merely a company that continues to sell old materials under the name in its digital shop. Nintendo also played a role, and there are plans to reintroduce new titles to the European market.
He asked for 1 percent of the income
Carlos Morán, partner at the industrial law firm Elzaburu, explains that the ruling recognizes Imagineer Co. Ltd. as the owner of the original video game Medabots, including the brand name. The game has not stopped being marketed within the European Union, with continued distribution and intellectual property management. The decision underwent an appeal, but this did not hinder Imagineer from continuing to sell the game or releasing new titles under the Medabots name as it has done previously.
The court decision states that Kevin Comadran acted in bad faith by attempting to claim a brand listed as abandoned in Europe while it remained active elsewhere. Comadran’s initial goal was to prevent Imagineer from creating new games under the Medabots name and to demand 1 percent of revenue generated in the European Union due to the trademark registered in his name. The Japanese company not only overcame this move but also succeeded in having the trademark held by Comadran canceled and the rights restored to Imagineer.
Comadran’s project later surfaced again in digital markets such as Apple’s App Store and Google Play, where the game had accumulated more than 100,000 downloads by early 2022. The non final decision from the Alicante court had ordered a halt to marketing the game and a withdrawal of the app from stores, but a beta version remained available on Google Play and the App Store. The term used to describe the game in some places remained Medabots, though Comadran Studios began using the title with variations aligned to the court’s decision, including the designation my robots.
As explained by Imagineer’s attorney, legal protection covers only the Medabots name, not necessarily the characters themselves, since there was not sufficient proof that the characters were identical to those in the original titles. This mirrors a broader pattern seen in other games on platforms like Google Play or the App Store, where visual likenesses inspired by popular franchises exist alongside different app names. This distinction underlines how branding and character design are treated differently in copyright and trademark contexts.
In cases like these, the outcome often hinges on how closely a rival brand’s appearance resembles the original while avoiding direct name clashes. The broader lesson for the video game industry is that branding rights can be contested without automatically transferring character copyrights, even when a style or theme echoes a well-known property.
Comadran’s situation illustrates the tension between legacy brands and new market players. The ongoing discussion around Medabots in Europe highlights how intellectual property law interacts with evolving digital distribution platforms and the shifting landscape of international branding rights.
Screenshots from the era, such as a depiction of Medabots Infinity from 2003, illustrate the look and feel that sparked this legal conversation. The story reveals how rewritten titles and regional branding can influence consumer perception and marketplace presence, even years after an initial launch.
You can still monetize these titles through digital marketplaces, as the light version of the game has accumulated downloads and remains accessible on major platforms. The decision underscores that while the trademark may be protected, the characters themselves require separate proof of identity, which the courts have not definitively established for all cases in dispute.
The broader takeaway for developers and publishers is clear: platform policies and local trademark laws can shape how a game is marketed across borders. It is possible to leverage brand recognition while carefully navigating the rights to characters and naming, ensuring compliance with the varying standards of each jurisdiction and platform store.