Using Nintendo’s branding in the box seems ill-advised. That’s giving Nintendo more fodder for the eventual lawsuit.
https://www.copetti.org/writings/consoles/game-boy/#anti-pir...
Playstation2 used something similar. ( https://github.com/mlafeldt/ps2logo )
I suppose it gave companies in question additional legal leverage - they could not distribute copies of games without violating the trademark laws.
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.
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.
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.
And they will use the logo as a way in.
https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/11736/why...
Still not in prison.
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."
Nullification is no more inherently righteous than a butcher knife.
A more recent one is the OJ trial.
But those are perfect examples of bad jurors.
It's up to you and your peers to be good jurors.
What system do you suggest?
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.
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.