Mechanics Are Free, Art Isn't: What the Block Blast Cloning Case Means for Puzzle Studios

Block Blast maker Hungry Studio has won its copyright case against Oakever Games, the developer behind Vita Mahjong, Amaze Go and Meowdoku. According to Mobilegamer.biz, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin of the US District Court for the Northern District of California found in Hungry Studio's favor on April 15. The complaint, filed in May 2025, said Oakever's QBlock used "essentially the same artwork and design interface" as Block Blast, along with some of its sound effects. QBlock has since been rebranded as Wood Block Puzzle Games.

Oakever is also facing a second lawsuit. Avia Games, which filed in December 2025, alleges that Oakever copied eight of its copyrighted ads and pasted its own game names and studio logo over them. That case is ongoing; Mobilegamer.biz reports it has stalled after Oakever failed to submit required documents, and Oakever did not respond to the outlet's request for comment.

What stands out is what Hungry Studio didn't claim. Its complaint is purely about copyright in the game's expression — the art, interface and audio — not its rules. That matches how US courts have treated game clones for years: mechanics aren't protected by copyright, but the way a game looks and sounds is. The best-known example is Tetris Holding v. Xio Interactive in 2012, where a court found that a Tetris clone infringed because it copied the game's visual expression, even though the rules of Tetris were free to use.

For block puzzles, tile matchers and word games, that line matters more than in most genres, because the core mechanics are nearly identical across hundreds of titles. Hungry Studio's complaint cites more than 40 million daily active users for Block Blast, which makes its look an obvious template to borrow. The real risk isn't making another block puzzle; it's shipping one whose board, block styling, interface and sound effects are close enough that a side-by-side comparison does the plaintiff's work for them. The Avia case adds a second front: ad creatives are copyrighted works too, and re-skinning a competitor's best-performing ad is not a shortcut.

As a studio that builds casual puzzle games, our takeaway is simple: borrow the genre, not the look. Original art direction, our own interface and sound, and creatives made in-house are what separate a legitimate entry in a crowded genre from a clone — and they're also what give a game a chance to be remembered. Apple's App Store guideline 4.1 already tells developers not to copy popular apps or pass off small changes to another app's name or UI as their own. This isn't legal advice, but the direction is clear: in casual games, sameness is getting expensive.