That still not enough.  The game seems to have a lot of systems in it that are not in Horizon.  While the setting looks similar, its not unique enough to say that Sony can trademark it.  Tencent wanted the Horizon name so they can profit off of the name but the game itself doesn't look like it plays the same.  I just do not see enough there for Sony to win but maybe its neither Tencent or Sony want to win but hash out something in between.  

I dunno, it's pretty clear it was a Horizon game and after not getting the IP they changed barely anything to make it different.

Not saying Sony will win, but the direct request of the IP and refusal gave them confidence enough to sue.

Apparently Sony is asking for $150,000 in damages, and for all of Light of Motiram's assets to be destroyed:

https://www.gamingbible.com/news/platform/playstation/horizon-zero-dawn-clone-sued-301685-20250729

The demand for destruction of assets reminds me of a much older copyright case - much, much older. It involves one of the classical movies and a novel that was very influental. I speak about "Nosferatu - eine Symphonie des Grauens", an expressionist movie that was a landmark and influenced the horror genre, despite most of it's copies getting destroyed based on a case started by Bram Stokers widow.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nosferatu

Funny thing is: both the movie and the novel are now so old, that you can replicate it without a problem, the copyright terms on both are past their term.

This is by the way how a lot of the movie and gaming industry works. Just ask yourself how often alone ancient greek myths (Herakles/Hercules, the olympian gods, the fight on Troja, the Odyssee) are used in modern movies (the whole Wonder Women series, Percy Jackson, the odyssee in O Brother There Art Thou), series (Xena, Kaos, Blood of Zeus) and games (God of War, Hades). And that is only one source of inspiration that has it's copyright terms ended.

Ah yes, the famous copyright terms on Greek mythology and ancient religion. It was truly momentous when they expired.

Well, it never existed in the first place. It is just an example on how all entertainment relies heavily on copying stuff. Nearly all our entertainment would be inexistant without copying. Copyright is a recent invention because some people wanted more easy money.

As I've said elsewhere, the whole notion that one can own ideas and prevent others from using those ideas in their own works is nonsensical. Copyright and patent law is bullshit. It is antithetical to human progress.

I don't think e.g. very many books would get written without copyright, because copying is so easy nowadays, and I don't think we want a world where literature isn't doing too well. That said, to me, copyright laws definitely seem too protective. Not sure about how beneficial patents are though, but there's definitely some overreaches there, so patent laws should probably be laxed too - it's just a matter of how much.

There is actually precedent for that, Nintendo was making a game where Popeye has to save Olive while dodging barrels thrown by Bluto, but the negotiations fell short, so Nintendo created Donkey Kong, got sued, and won.

That is most likely untrue. First of all books existed before copyright. But more importantly: there were studies on the era that had established printing with Gutenbergs printing press but before the introduction of copyright, and it saw an explosion of authors and texts. The reason is the economical incentives for printers. Before copyright a successful text probably was printed by others withing a few months. So there was a strong incentive to pay more authors for more new texts. After the introduction of copyright these incentives shifted. You could now ride on a success, so the need to constantly print new authors with new texts vanished. Also the printers could delegate their risks towards the authors. They could the authors pay less by giving them royalties - which were dependent on success. So no success, the author got not much out of it. Before copyright the authors would be paid upfront, as no long term gains could be made anyways. So especially for books we know that copyright isn't beneficial to creating more. For other media it is not as clear, as these mostly came after the existance of copyright.