in case you don't know, some Gameboy games required to have Nintendo logo in the game data as part of copy protection. allegedly that was legal protection against bootlegs.
Using the word "nintendo" on something intended to play any kind of games is trademark infringement. The Kawaii devs likely don't intend to confuse people, but if a consumer saw this product for sale they'd rightly assume it's a Nintendo product.
Using a brand name like this just makes things easier when Nintendo attorneys barely have to roll out of bed when sending a cease and desist order.
Just call it Kawaii and stay slightly under the radar. Sadly, Nintendo will probably come for you anyways.
Many years ago I bought an Intel processor. It came with a sticker inside a book that was several pages of terms and conditions on what the sticker can be stuck on. Mentioned as something not to do was applying the sticker to a computing device that did not contain an Intel processor, so I immediately stuck it on my Switch.
Some of these console mods only really get sold as kits or products on places like Aliexpress.
Needless to say, they are pretty safe from Nintendo. If these guys aren't selling the schematics, and posting them for free, Nintendo has a lot less of a leg to stand on.
Nintendo is notoriously litigious. It is naive to think you’re “pretty safe” from them. If they want to sue you, they will, and could bankrupt you with the legal fees alone.
Reusing branding always opens you up to liability. There are a lot of angles that you wouldn't expect, that trademark can be used to attack you with. And Nintendo are very hostile to any and all uses.
While Nintendo might not lose the trademark entirely if they don't sue, they could risk weakening its strength, therefore they have to sue in this case.
Consistent inaction against infringers can lead to the public perceiving the trademark as less distinctive. This can make it harder to protect the trademark in the future, and can encouraging further infringement.
It appears that they're gathering orders for to do a group-buy of a custom-machined aluminum shell for the keychain widget, and that this newly-minted custom-machined hunk of aluminum includes the a replication of the Nintendo logo.
That's commerce.
Now, obviously: Their target market knows exactly what they're buying, and they aren't going to be confused by any of this at all.
But trademark law (and the surrounding case law) may not see it that way.
It's easier (and a lot less fear-inducing) to cease-and-desist before Nintendo's IP lawyers send a nastygram than it is to do so afterward. (And in order to keep their trademark intact, they pretty much have to send that nastygram. Trademarks are very much a defend-it-or-lose-it thing.)
---
"Sorry guys, the first order had to be scrapped along with all of the money we collected and spent on it. If anyone is still interested, the price is still $55 for a shell without the logo if we can get another 30 orders in again."
Doesn't matter. Reselling a modified brand product can count as counterfeiting. Legal conditional checks don't always coincide with human instinctive one, law is code too after all.
Ultimately it just means that we have a way to make sure that We the People aren't being punished by laws that we don't consent to being held to.
It puts power directly into the hands of the typical American citizen, which is why our legal system is terrified of it. You don't have to be rich or well-connected to sit on a jury. It also effectively limits what can be done using that power to what a "random" (and presumably representative) selection of the community agrees to. That's what a "jury of your peers" was supposed to be all about.
I'd say that nullification makes it possible for people to truly govern themselves and that makes it an inherently righteous system.
It's the righteousness of the people who make up a community that is questionable, but even imperfect people deserve democracy and the right to self-govern.
It's all an edge case. Nullification isn't an intended right, it's an unavoidable loophole. It's the necessary consequence of a system where no one is allowed to tell a juror how to vote or demand that they justify their decision: there's no way to maintain those requirements and also punish jurors for ignoring the law completely, so we just ask them to pretty please not do that.
And that's fine. It's certainly better than letting anyone legally pressure jurors. Democracy and freedom are all about compromise. I'm just saying, it's not corruption for judges to prefer jurors who don't ignore the law.