Is Nintendo Finally Getting (Back) Into the VR Market?

Nintendo has filed a new trademark application for “VIRTUAL BOY” in the United States, specifically for use with “headsets”—a move that should raise eyebrows throughout the gaming community in light of Nintendo’s prior attempts at VR. The application, based on a Japanese registration from November 14, 2024, hit an immediate roadblock when the USPTO refused registration on May 30, 2025, citing a likelihood of confusion with an existing trademark.

The Ghost of Gaming Past Returns

For those who weren’t around in 1995 (or have successfully blocked out the memory), the Virtual Boy was Nintendo’s infamous attempt at virtual reality gaming. Marketed as a revolutionary 3D gaming experience, the console featured a red monochrome display viewed through a binocular eyepiece and sold only 770,000 units worldwide before being discontinued in 1996. The system was notorious for causing headaches, nausea, and eye strain—so much so that Nintendo had to include liability warnings with the product.

Last year, IGN did an April Fool’s Day joke video of a new “Virtual Boy Pro” for the Nintendo Switch. Well, they may not have been far off from the truth.

The timing of this new filing is particularly intriguing. While 2025 is shaping up to be a quieter year for VR hardware overall, with Samsung and Google’s mixed reality headset being the only major device confirmed, Nintendo’s move suggests they might be eyeing the VR space once again—despite their historically cautious approach to the technology.

Trademark Obstacles

Here’s where things get interesting from a trademark perspective. The USPTO refused Nintendo’s application based on an existing registration for “THE VIRTUAL BOYS” owned by 2N2VR LLC. This mark, registered since November 5, 2019, covers “Entertainment services, namely, the provision of continuing shows featuring Video game Gameplay delivered by the internet.”

The refusal highlights a classic trademark law principle: likelihood of confusion. Even though Nintendo’s application is for physical headsets and the existing mark covers entertainment services, the USPTO determined that consumers might be confused about the source of these goods and services. The similarity between “VIRTUAL BOY” and “THE VIRTUAL BOYS” is close enough to raise concerns, especially given that both relate to gaming and entertainment.

What This Means for Small Businesses

This situation offers several important lessons for entrepreneurs and small business owners:

1. Use It or Lose It: Even if you previously owned a trademark (as Nintendo did with the original Virtual Boy), abandoning it means someone else can claim similar territory. Nintendo let their original Virtual Boy trademarks lapse years ago, opening the door for others.

2. Comprehensive Searches are Critical: Before investing in a brand, conduct thorough trademark searches beyond just exact matches. Similar marks in related fields can block your application.

3. International Strategy: Nintendo’s approach—filing first in Japan, then extending to the US—is common but can encounter unexpected obstacles in different jurisdictions.

Nintendo’s VR Skepticism

What makes this filing particularly puzzling is Nintendo’s well-documented skepticism about VR. In 2017, then-president Tatsumi Kimishima stated that Nintendo was “studying” VR but wanted to ensure users could play for long durations without issues—a clear reference to the Virtual Boy’s painful legacy.

The company’s only recent VR venture was the Labo VR Kit for the Switch in 2019, which used cardboard accessories to create simple VR experiences. That product was apparently discontinued, suggesting limited market success.

The Plot Thickens

So why would Nintendo resurrect the Virtual Boy brand now? Several theories emerge:

1. Defensive Filing: Nintendo might be filing defensively to prevent others from capitalizing on their infamous brand, especially with growing interest in “retro” gaming experiences.
2. Future Hardware Plans: Despite public skepticism, Nintendo could be developing new VR technology that addresses the original Virtual Boy’s shortcomings.
3. Nostalgia Marketing: The Virtual Boy has achieved cult status among collectors. Nintendo might be planning commemorative products or experiences.

But Will They Actually Use It? (Spoiler: They Have To)

You might think this is just Nintendo being Nintendo — hoarding old brands like a digital dragon sitting on its pile of IP gold, filing “standard trademark renewals” for every defunct product in their vault. But here’s the thing: that’s not how U.S. trademark law works.

First, this isn’t a renewal at all. It’s a brand new U.S. trademark application based on a recently filed Japanese registration from 2024. Nintendo’s original U.S. trademarks for “VIRTUAL BOY” lapsed years ago. Once abandoned, those rights don’t just stick around waiting for a nostalgic comeback — they’re gone unless you continue using the mark in commerce. Use it or lose it.

Second, and this is where it gets interesting, U.S. trademark law doesn’t allow companies to “warehouse” trademarks like some kind of intellectual property time capsule. Rights are based on actual use, not corporate lineage or wishful thinking. If a mark isn’t being used in U.S. commerce, it can’t be maintained.

So what does this mean? Nintendo will need to prove commercial use of “VIRTUAL BOY” with headsets in the United States before this application will register. They can’t just file it and forget it. They’ll either need to:

• Actually launch some kind of Virtual Boy-branded headset product
• Use the mark in commerce for headset-related goods (even commemorative ones)
• Drop “headsets” from the application entirely

The fact that Nintendo bothered to file this fresh application — and specifically for “headsets” — suggests they have real plans brewing. Whether it’s new hardware, limited edition collectibles, or strategic brand protection tied to an actual product launch, filing alone isn’t enough. They’ll need to put their money where their trademark is.

The Road Ahead

Nintendo faces several options:

• Respond to the Refusal: They could argue that their goods (headsets) are sufficiently different from 2N2VR’s services to avoid confusion.
• Negotiate: Nintendo might approach 2N2VR about coexistence agreements or even purchasing their trademark.
• Rebrand: They could abandon this application and choose a different mark for any VR ventures.

The irony isn’t lost on anyone: Nintendo’s most spectacular hardware failure has become a trademark battleground 30 years later. Whether this filing represents genuine VR ambitions or simple brand protection, it’s a reminder that in the world of intellectual property, even dead brands can have second lives—though sometimes with complications.

For businesses watching this unfold, the lesson is clear: trademark protection requires ongoing vigilance. Even giant companies like Nintendo can face obstacles when returning to abandoned territory.

Need help navigating complex trademark issues? Contact Harrigan IP today to schedule a consultation with an experienced trademark attorney who can help protect your brand from similar pitfalls.