Who copied digimon
Executive summary
The short answer to "who copied Digimon" is: there is no authoritative record showing a single franchise or company definitively copied Digimon; instead, fans and commentators have accused multiple properties of borrowing ideas from one another—most notably Pokémon and, more recently, Palworld—while historians of the franchises point to different origins and mutual influence rather than proven plagiarism [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The origin story that undercuts a simple "copied" narrative
Digimon emerged as a Bandai effort connected to virtual pet toys (Tamagotchi) and was aimed at giving a more boy-oriented, battle-capable companion device, not as an explicit ripoff of Pokémon; multiple retrospective accounts and op-eds trace Digimon’s genesis to Tamagotchi lineage and argue that the franchise’s core concept and intent differ from Pokémon’s origins [1] [2] [3].
2. Pokémon arrived first in the marketplace, which fuels accusations but not proof
Because the Pokémon games and anime reached broad global awareness before Digimon’s mainstream anime launch, critics and fans have long drawn comparisons and alleged copying; coverage and opinion pieces explain that timing and visible similarities in “monster-collection” aesthetics have driven claims, even as analysts emphasize substantive thematic and mechanical differences between the two brands [2] [3].
3. Fans point fingers both ways—"who copied whom" is a partisan debate
The discourse is polarized: some fans claim Digimon lifted ideas from Pokémon, others argue Pokémon borrowed from Digimon (and elements like evolutions or battle mechanics have been compared back and forth across forum threads and fan essays), but these are fan-driven arguments lacking formal legal resolution in the sources provided [1] [3] [5].
4. Newer controversies recycle the same pattern—Palworld as the latest flashpoint
Recent disputes over the game Palworld have reignited the plagiarism conversation: journalists and commentators noted visual and conceptual similarities to Pokémon (and invoked Digimon in broader comparisons), with public accusations on forums and some commentators pointing to developer use of AI tools as heightening the sense of infringement—yet published reporting shows these are contested allegations and legal action (Nintendo suing Palworld) remains the focus rather than a settled finding that any one property “copied” Digimon outright [4] [6] [7] [8].
5. Legal and commercial incentives blur the discourse—accusation ≠ adjudication
Media pieces and opinion columns observe that accusations of plagiarism are sometimes amplified by corporate and cultural incentives—brands want to protect IP and fans want cultural primacy—so public outrage and lawsuits (or threats thereof) often substitute for clear provenance; none of the supplied reporting documents a definitive court ruling that establishes Digimon as the copied party or that names a single copyist of Digimon in law [4] [6] [9].
6. Reasoned conclusion: influence, convergence, and contested claims, not a single copier
Based on the assembled reporting, the responsible conclusion is that multiple franchises have influenced one another and that fan communities frequently accuse rivals of copying, but there is no uncontested, source-supported finding in these materials that a single entity "copied Digimon" as a settled fact; commentators from Screen Rant, CBR, and niche fan and forum sources present the debate as mutual borrowing and cultural convergence rather than clear plagiarism proven in court [2] [3] [1] [7].