A shift in legal options for developers to challenge clones arose from the 2012 federal New Jersey district court decision in "Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive, Inc." that ruled in favor of The Tetris Company, the licensees of the "Tetris" copyright, over the clone "Mino", developed by Xio Interactive, which used the same gameplay as "Tetris" but with different art assets. The developers for "Mino" has cited in their defense that they only used the uncopyrightable gameplay elements of "Tetris" in "Mino". The court ruled that copyright law was in favor of the Tetris Company's claim, as the gameplay was copied without changes, and while the art assets were new, the "look and feel" of "Mino" could be easily confused for that of "Tetris". The court also recognized that since the time "Tetris" had been released and when "Mino" was published, there was enough new technology in graphics that "Mino" could have added new forms of expression to the base gameplay to better distinguish from the idea of "Tetris", such as how to display the tetraminos or the animation of how they fell, but instead copied very closely what "Tetris" had done, thus making it more likely a copyright violation. While only a district court decision and not binding outside of New Jersey, this served as case law for other developers to fend off "look-and-feel" clones.