Tencent has hit back at Sony’s Horizon lawsuit, telling the court that the case is built on “future conduct that has not, and may never occur.”
It’s been a few months since Sony filed a lawsuit against Tencent, accusing the Chinese tech giant of copying its hit Horizon franchise with the upcoming survival game Light of Motiram. The lawsuit, filed in July 2025, says Tencent deliberately built a “slavish clone” complete with a flame-haired tribal warrior, robot wildlife, and a tone that feels like it was ripped straight out of Guerrilla’s post-apocalyptic world.
Since the lawsuit was filed, both sides have been trading legal blows. In September, The Game Post reported that Tencent had filed a motion to dismiss the case entirely, arguing that Sony was trying to seek “an impermissible monopoly on genre conventions.”
Sony then hit back with its response in opposition, calling Tencent’s arguments “nonsense” and accusing the company of “playing a shell game” through a web of subsidiaries like Aurora Studios and Proxima Beta to dodge accountability.
Sony then followed this with a motion for a preliminary injunction, seeking to block Tencent from promoting or releasing Light of Motiram in its current form, claiming it would suffer “irreparable harm” to its Horizon franchise if the game remained publicly available in its alleged infringing state.
Now, Tencent has filed its reply in support of that motion to dismiss. In new documents, filed on October 29, 2025, and obtained by The Game Post, the company tells the judge that Sony’s claims should be thrown out entirely, arguing the lawsuit targets the wrong parties and is built on speculation about an unreleased game.
Sony’s Horizon lawsuit is based on “future conduct that has not, and may never occur”
One of the strongest points in Tencent’s latest argument is timing. The company starts by telling Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley that Sony’s lawsuit shouldn’t even exist. The company points out that Light of Motiram isn’t out yet, and its release is currently set for late 2027, nearly two years away.
“[Sony’s complaint is] based on future conduct that has not—and may never—occur, [rendering] at least that portion of Sony’s lawsuit unripe for adjudication,” Tencent says. “At bottom, the core of Sony’s lawsuit is that an unreleased video game with a planned release date that is currently two years away will infringe its copyrights and trademark.”
Tencent uses this to argue that the case isn’t ripe, meaning it’s too early for the court to even consider it.
No personal jurisdiction over Tencent Holdings
Another major part of the filing focuses on jurisdiction. Tencent argues that the court has no authority over Tencent Holdings Ltd., the parent company based in China.
According to the filing, “no Tencent Holdings employees or executives attended the March 2024 San Francisco pitch meeting” and the parent company “is not the developer or publisher of Light of Motiram.” Tencent says the evidence shows that Tencent Holdings had “no involvement in materials for that meeting” and plays no direct role in the development, marketing, or release of the game.
“This lawsuit was brought against the wrong parties, long before many of the purported acts of infringement have even occurred, regarding intellectual property rights that are, at least in part, not adequately plead,” the reply reads. “Sony might be frustrated by the fact that it has to follow the proper procedures and serve the parties that, as alleged, are actually the relevant actors.
“But that is no reason to allow a deficient lawsuit to proceed against defendants who are not responsible for the infringing conduct alleged. The Complaint should be dismissed because Sony has failed to demonstrate that this Court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Tencent Holdings, has failed to allege any specific facts supporting its claims against any of the three Served Defendants, has failed to plead essential elements of its trademark claims, and has failed to demonstrate that its chief claim—development of an allegedly infringing video game—is ripe for adjudication.”
The lawsuit names Tencent Holdings Ltd. (the Chinese parent company), Tencent America LLC, and Proxima Beta U.S. LLC. But according to Tencent, the actual developer and publisher of Light of Motiram are Tencent Shanghai (also known as Aurora Studios or Polaris Quest) and Proxima Beta Pte. Ltd., a Singapore-based company that operates under Tencent Games and Level Infinite.
It goes on to argue that Sony’s complaint lumps together multiple Tencent subsidiaries as if they’re all one company, which violates basic pleading rules. The company calls Sony’s attempts to include the parent corporation “speculative,” noting that the Ninth Circuit doesn’t allow jurisdiction based solely on a parent-subsidiary relationship.
Tencent says Sony can’t claim a trademark just because Aloy is famous
At the core of the reply is Tencent’s challenge to Sony’s attempt to treat Aloy’s visual appearance as a trademark. Tencent’s attorneys write that “fame does not create a trademark; to qualify as a trademark, a mark must serve as a source identifier for a particular good or service.“
In other words, the company says Sony can’t rely on Aloy’s popularity or recognizability alone, it has to prove that her look is used specifically as a trademark outside the games she appears in. The brief adds that Sony “fails to identify Aloy’s appearance as a trademark outside the game,” arguing that the character’s design serves as part of the game’s storytelling, not as a brand mark in itself.
“While it may be true that gamers recognize Aloy as a character inside the Horizon game, Sony fails to identify Aloy’s appearance as a trademark outside the game, the document reads. “In the Complaint, Sony says that the purported mark is characterized by its attire, accessories, and facial markings. But generalized descriptions are not enough to identify a trademark.”
Tencent also criticizes Sony’s description of Aloy’s appearance as inconsistent and vague, saying that the complaint shows multiple different depictions of the character, making it impossible to define what exactly Sony claims as a single, protectable “mark.”
“Sony’s vague description and varying depictions of Aloy’s appearance in the game cannot serve as a basis to identify the purported Aloy trademark because they do not provide adequate—or even any—identification of Aloy’s appearance in her functioning as a trademark.
“Sony attempts to sidestep this issue by saying that ‘[o]f course’ Aloy’s details change, because she is ‘the main character of a videogame.’ But Sony has things backwards: Purported trademarks do not receive special treatment because they happen to also appear as characters in games or media. Rather, characters that appear in games or media only become trademarks when they are used in a consistent, identifiable manner as a source identifier for a product or service beyond their role as a game character.”
Sony has previously claimed that Aloy’s “silhouette” and “appearance” function as recognizable trademarks. But in this reply, Tencent calls that argument overly broad, saying that Sony is relying on generalized descriptions rather than a clear design that serves as a source identifier.
The company shared an example like Disney’s Mickey Mouse, noting that even major companies file separate, distinct trademarks for different visual versions of the same character. Tencent argues that if Aloy’s look changes across promotional materials and games, it cannot represent a single, distinct mark.
“Whether or not Mickey Mouse is recognizable as a single character within a movie about Mickey Mouse does not establish that Mickey Mouse can alter his appearance and still function as a single trademark when he appears as a source identifier selling products or services.
“Indeed, Disney itself, likely recognizing this very point, has over the years applied to register various trademarks with different Mickey Mouse appearances, thereby not assuming that a single Mickey Mouse trademark is enough to cover all variations in Mickey’s appearance.”
This reply is Tencent’s final written argument in support of its motion to dismiss. The next major step would be a ruling from the court. For now, Tencent wants the court to drop all claims, not just against Tencent Holdings, but against all parties.
What do you think about Tencent’s arguments here? Let us know your thoughts in the comments below!
