Unfortunately? The only thing about this that's unfortunate is that they didn't send a C&D before demanding a settlement. I'm not the biggest fan of the IP industry, but it takes a certain amount of guts to use somebody's trademark in this way.

*Comes in to make some Japanese and pokemon jokes*

*Sees everyone engaged in heated debate over copyright and commerce laws*

*quietly grabs another drink and heads for exit door*

The issue is trademark infringement, but other than that you're mostly correct.
You should grab some popcorn and watch as the thread burns.

Indeed. I think I need to change my avatar sig from beer and pizza to whiskey and popcorn. The latter two are far more necessary for this forum.

Surely trademark infringement would be use of the trademarked name 'Pokemon'. Using the character designs on posters and things is still copyright infringement isn't it? I'll admit that I'm not sure now, but that's what I had thought.
If I was right, I guess he was doing both.

Sure, unfortunately. And I say that almost as much for the IP holder as the fan. In my ideal world, which I invite you to visit any time you’re feeling down, why would an IP holder want to shut down a party and stifle their own fan’s enthusiasm for their products? That doesn't help them; quite the opposite. They have to do it because that’s the way copyright law is written.

And once in a while that’s the impression I get in these cases. A fan steps over the line, the IP holder has to set them straight with a cuff around the ear and a muss of the hair. Then there are cases like this that jump right to a full blown lawsuit, where I can only picture a guy who looks suspiciously like J Jonah Jameson lighting a cigar with an abused Pikachu.

I remember around the time Pokémon Black and White came out that people were looking for trademarked names and found some. So whilst Nintendo/their subs may not trademark all Pokémon they do for at least a good chunk.

Also my opinion. He is a fool.
Whilst I do think that suing a person over something as small as a "party" is stupid, it should have been cease and desist (I have a feeling he may have ignored that though). The thing is, he did use images, charge for admittance and was not just "renting" a venue.
Maybe he should have thought about just hiking up the food a bit, but nothing named after any Pokémon. People also have to remember that Nintendo and their subs are looking for any means and reason to flex their rather well endowed legal department. They are one of the many Japanese companies who refuse to act like the West, be that a good or a bad thing.

(A little OT)
This is a little similar to when the Olympics came to the UK and everything from local pubs to churches got trading standards at their door to tell them to stop promoting the Olympics. All because it might cause confusion as they were not a paid affiliate of the Olympics. Basically you can pay in tax for the games to take place, but you cannot enjoy a little bit of the fun, while the tax dodging companies can.
http://www.northdevonjournal.co.uk/Olympic-window-display-gets-ll-sue-threat/story-16238118-detail/story.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151093/Florist-told-sued-Coca-Cola-unless-takes-Olympic-rings-window-display.html

Hey, come back here and ligten up the mood!

Not really. Whether they're officially licensed posters or not, the offense would be trademark infringement. The only way it would be copyright infringement would be if the posters were unlicensed copies of an official poster. Which is possible, but not to be assumed.

This somehow reminds me of the microsoft's EULA or limitations they had originally put on Halo games (last year or so, i think it was revised), namely you couldn't call it a Halo game or have it's title. At which point you'd ask seriously 'then what do we call it? Because if we're playing halo, what do we call it for someone who's looking for the halo let's play footage' Dilemma. (In Microsoft's case, it's likely so they could DMCA all Halo footage they didn't own or put strikes out in case they wanted to put new trailers in the highest search ranking, not too unlike what Sega did with Shining Force and killed dozens of youtube channels)

If you can't call it pokemon but it's pokemon themed... what do you call it? X&Y? Red & Blue? Pokeballs? At that point it's just the company's name wanting to be absent. I suppose the theme could be 'from the game where you catch wild animals into magical balls to fight in areas' could work, but it's dancing around the name and hopefully people will go 'oooohhhh yeahhh' and go with it, or they get attacked even if the name wasn't used.

I think it's a bad idea for a business owner to use copyright material for profit. Even so, a cease and desist was in order. It's not in a rulebook, but I think that's a cruicial step. The point shouldn't be to sue to get back money from damage done, (was there really?), the point is to protect your IP by letting people know it's not okay to use it that way.

Even if my personal opinion was that an up-front lawsuit was dandy, I would still recommend against it. That just makes you look trigger-happy. It makes you harder to trust. Are your fans going to feel more or less comfortable, knowing you shoot first and ask questions later?

Now if it was a private party, all bets are off. Leave your mitts off of them. You're just gonna look crazy!

Thanks for pointing that out. I was a little fuzzy on what fell under what.

No worries, I think the conclusion is the same either way. It's really only relevant for people dealing in IP.

I can't blame you for the fuzz there, it's kind of an odd line. If they redrew somebody elses design as part of the posters, that would likely be both copyright infringement and trademark infringement.