It's a bit weird that they think Sony won't come after them too, but they seem to think this little note in the FAQ is enough to survive..
Not sure what they're smoking, I give them a week tops.
I haven't read the original complaint (or if I have it has zipped right out of my memory) and have not yet read anything of Nintendo's efforts but there are two main angles of attack, both of which they appear to have anticipated and are fairly readily worked around.
1) Trademark.
When sounding it out or at a glance then platestation might well sound like playstation.
I don't know if it quite reaches the could cause confusion in a typical customer (which I remind us all includes parents buying things for kids) standard most trademarks are held to but it would not be a case I want to argue and there are similar examples that might even be less clear cut.
If the name is not something that sounds like it, does not claim endorsement by nor imply it too hard then unlikely to apply here. If they had done the common dodgy vendor thing of sticking someone's logo, possibly trademarked character (many popular games have their character trademarked in addition to the game names themselves, some go far further still and will do it for a great number of fields to allow them to sell toothpaste with the character on and whatever else) then that would be another.
To what extent they would want to avoid any ties I don't know. I figure however there is a reason why many phone cases or console covers on the usual suspects for cheap tat will avoid naming consoles and supported items, or specially use phrases like will fit in descriptions rather than give a nice clear title.
2) Design patents. Various similar things exist in many places (for the UK you would want to look up design rights and registered designs, two different concepts and there are exclusions for devices that interface with others).
These are usually things like a trade colour scheme for an item, or a given shape of one (again though look up what goes for things designed to interface).
They are somewhat weaker form of IP protection than the big three most ever meet, or meet in news stories, but never the less are some that do very much see courts able to block import, sale and whatnot just as they would for patents or a boat load of dodgy DVDs should the items fall within the rather limited remit of the protections in question.
Most of the cases you see for this will be colours. Usually someone copies the colours of a popular/expensive brand but said brand had registered it and thus gets to say choose some other colours, or maybe another shape.
https://hackaday.com/2014/03/19/mul...oad-trademark-bans-yellow-multimeter-imports/
In any case there is very little any company can do to block the sale, import, production and distribution of clip on covers for things as a general concept in most jurisdictions, and frankly that is a fantastic thing for blocking such simplicity is really bad news.
