He ruled that Universal did not own "King Kong", but even if "King Kong" was Universal's property, the possibility that anyone would confuse "Donkey Kong" and "King Kong" was unlikely. In his opinion, "Donkey Kong" was "comical" and the ape character "farcical, childlike and nonsexual." The King Kong character, on the other hand, was "a ferocious gorilla in quest of a beautiful woman." Sweet declared that "At best, Donkey Kong is a parody of King Kong." Furthermore, Sweet said, the cease-and-desist letters that Universal had sent to Nintendo's licensees gave the game company the right to seek damages. Finally, Sweet ruled that Tiger's "King Kong" was an infringement of "Donkey Kong":