HOW TO PROTECT GAMEPLAY MECHANICS

The protection of gameplay mechanics under intellectual property law is evolving within the French and European legal landscape: the quest for gameplay protection is fraught with difficulties, but there is light at the end of the path.

A brief overview of the current legal trends.

As evidenced by French and European case law, video games are characterized by a combination of multiple elements of different natures, such as software, visuals, music, narrative, and gameplay mechanics, each of which may be subject to specific legal regimes. This inherent complexity means that any game developer seeking to claim intellectual property rights to protect its video game must carefully assess each of these components to secure the whole in the most robust and enforceable manner. This complexity is particularly evident in the protection of game mechanics, creating a landscape marked by both challenges and opportunities.

GAMEPLAY PROTECTION: THE QUEST OF THE FINE LINE

Under French law, video games do not benefit from a specific legal classification or sui generis regime. The French Intellectual Property Code remains silent on their legal nature. Nevertheless, video games are generally protected under copyright law, i.e. software code, graphics, music, and narrative elements, provided that these components meet the requirement of originality. Importantly, no formal registration is required to benefit from this protection.

While elements such as audiovisual design or narrative can easily be deemed original, gameplay mechanics (i.e., the rules, systems, and user interactions that define how the game is played) might pose a greater challenge. According to French case law, such gameplay mechanics might enjoy protection through copyright as well as unfair competition, if they enjoy originality and/or establish an “individual economic value”. For casual games, such evidence might be harder to bring. In a recent case law, the Paris Court of first instance ruled that some gameplay elements and visual style might not be eligible to such protection, because they belong to the “common pool of standard video game features”1. The line between elements deemed protectable by a court and those deemed unprotectable can be fine. To draw this line, it is essential for the claimant to carefully document the creative process, demonstrate the originality and investment behind each element, and clearly distinguish unique features from standard conventions. In practice, this means keeping detailed records of prototypes, concept art, development notes, and iterations of the video game development.

Where copyright protection is denied, claimants may also pursue claims under unfair competition law, particularly where a competing game slavishly imitates a commercially successful title. These circumstances have been noted by the Paris Court of first instance in the past to uphold an unfair competition claim, emphasizing the defendant’s misappropriation of the claimant’s substantial investment2. Here again, the key to success lies in carefully documenting the investment and creative effort involved in developing the game, including development costs, marketing efforts, and time spent on design and gameplay innovation. In the context of hyper-casual games, which are defined by minimalistic mechanics and short market cycles, standardization and low complexity of the gameplay3, as well as technical constraints imposed by widely used development tools4 call for a shift towards other types of legal protection.

EMERGING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE LEGAL PROTECTION OF VIDEO GAMES

In the United States and Japan, some rightsholders have successfully used patents to protect innovative gameplay mechanics, enabling enforcement against competitors adopting similar features. While direct patent protection is more limited in Europe, where “software as such” are generally excluded, EU legal frameworks still offer promising alternative routes for safeguarding creative game elements.

Trademark law, for instance, provides new opportunities, particularly with the introduction of the “motion mark” on October 1st, 2017. Motion trademarks can cover animated sequences or distinctive gameplay visuals, allowing developers to protect recognizable, moving aspects of their games. Such tools complement traditional protection and help reinforce brand identity in ways that were previously unavailable.

Design rights also remain a powerful avenue in the EU, covering the visual appearance of elements like user interfaces, characters, or icons but hardly the underlying gameplay5. That said, recent developments under the EU’s new Design Legislative Reform Package have broadened the scope of protection by including animated content, movement, and visual effects, elements central to video game aesthetics and interactivity. This evolution opens promising avenues for protecting dynamic features that were previously beyond the reach of traditional design law.

CONCLUSION

Given the above, video games developers can proactively strengthen their intellectual property strategy by taking the following steps:

Integrate IP considerations early in the R&D phase: Embed copyright, design rights, and, where feasible, patent strategies into the R&D process to maximize future protection.

Framing and documenting the integration of Al into the creative process: Set up clear internal policies on the use of Al by development teams, defining good practices that both encourage innovation and safeguard the ability to secure relevant IP protection.

Document the creative journey: Maintain thorough records of prototypes, concept art, and design iterations to substantiate originality and investment in case of disputes.

Leverage expert guidance: Work with IP specialists to accurately assess risks and preserve innovative gameplay mechanics that contribute to a distinctive player experience.

Stay ahead of regulatory developments: Monitor evolving frameworks, such as the EU Design Reform Package and trademark innovations like motion marks, to seize emerging protection opportunities.

By adopting a forward-looking IP approach, developers not only safeguard their current creations but also position themselves to capitalize on new legal tools that enhance the commercial and creative value of their games.

1. TJ Paris, 7 Nov. 2024, n°24/02849

2. TJ Paris, 4 Sept. 2020, n°20/03352

3. In a 2024 ruling, the Paris court of first instance rejected game developer’s claim, highlighting the difficulty of establishing unfair competition in a sector characterized by standardized and lowcomplexity gameplay (TJ Paris, 27 June 2024, n°22/01551).

4. In a 2025 decision, the Paris Commercial court dismissed allegations of unfair competition on the grounds that the features in question were not original to the claimant but instead stemmed from the standard functionalities of Unreal Engine 5, a common industry platform (TAE Paris, 22 Jan. 2025, n 20240226322).

5. This was illustrated in a case where infringement claims over a video game interface were dismissed due to the shared stylistic traits typical of “connect and conquer” games (TJ Paris, 27 June 2024, n 22/01551).