Nintendo loses trademark fight against Super Mario supermarket

Nintendo's Super Mario mark wasn't granted for the category containing supermarkets, so their registration doesn't allow them to stop anyone using those two words for a super market. But if a market were to also incorporate elements of the Super Mario logo, font or trade dress then Nintendo could pursue them for trading on the value of Nintendo's brand. Which is what you're referring to.

But in this case, the market didn't do that. Trademark law and the associated decades of precedent are actually pretty deep and nuanced. Even back in the 1920s people would try to skirt the rules and benefit from a strong brand's recognition without getting technically busted. So trademark jurisprudence has gotten surprisingly good at sniffing out these shenanigans. But by not using any other logos, colors or trade dress, the market is completely in the clear within their category.

It actually doesn't matter if Mario, the market owner, was being a savvy legal eagle and shrewdly planned to soak up a little of Nintendo's brand value or if Mario really did just name his super market "Super Mario". Trademark law expressly allows him to do that. And it's a good thing it does because granting mega-brands like Nintendo and Disney a monopoly on using simple combinations of common words is a slippery slope toward dystopia. It needs strict boundaries and limits. Mario's market isn't "getting away" with anything here. He's playing by the rules. IMHO, this wasn't even a close call. Nintendo's claim was obvious bullshit. They knew it was bullshit but filed it anyway because usually little guys just give up when faced with an army of high-priced lawyers. I'm glad Mario didn't. Instead, he asserted his rights under the law and won because he didn't do anything wrong.

The article says "But despite trading under the Super Mario name for decades" which seems to imply that 2013 was just when they registered the trademark, not when they originally named the supermarket

Also it may be the case that supermarkets are commonly named "Super (name)" there although I can't confirm that.

I would be curious when exactly the supermarket was named "Super Mario" though.

Somebody named Diego might call their supermarket “Super Diego”. It’s not weird at all.

I’m sure this guy was aware that Super Mario was a Nintendo character. But is this enough to prohibit him from using his own name for his own store?

If the supermarket didn't use Nintendo's font, colors, imagery, or characters —just the name—then the court likely ruled that:

-No confusion exists since a grocery store isn't competing with a video game company.

-No dilution occurs because Nintendo's brand strength in gaming isn't weakened by a supermarket.

-Fair use applies if the name has a legitimate reason unrelated to Nintendo.