Did Coke or Ford ever sue each other for exclusive rights to the script/font?
Or did each company “tweak” the shape of the letters just so…making their respective logos unique to their brand identities?
Somebody needs to make a game of a mouse murdering parrots with potatoes.
And a horror film:
And they’re probably going to get lawyered to death, on grounds of trademark infringement.
I dunno about that. Blood and Honey didn’t seem to face any legal issues (after a re-write before it was shot to remove any active Disney IP), and has a sequel in development.
If Thunderbird wine used the font, could they be sued by Coke and Ford?
Again, not a lawyer here, but one difference between the two appears to be that Steamboat Willie image is still being used by Disney under trademark. In the WtP case, the film didn’t use the images from the Disney films, just the storyline from the original stories. The design of the character costumes was not like the images in the Disney films. In the Steamboat Willie movie and game, the images look remarkably like the characters Disney is still using.
Was The Simpsons “Steamboat Itchy” considered fair use, or did Disney just not bother to sue?
I’m not a lawyer either, and I think an IP lawyer probably wouldn’t be able to tell us whether trademark action against them would be successful. It doesn’t seem that likely to me since the image isn’t being used as a trademark in these cases, just a character. It’s a derivative character (that doesn’t look much like Steamboat Mickey, IMHO), but I can’t imagine anyone being fooled into thinking they were Disney productions.
There’s a bit of a gray area in this case. There’s no central body that determines these things, so the ultimate test would have been if Disney had brought suit.
Parody is generally considered to fall under the fair use doctrine, but if you copy too directly, you can still run afoul. In this case of the Simpsons, it would be pretty hard to argue they were literally copying “Steamboat Willie” when it was so different in many ways and also hard to argue they weren’t overtly and obviously parodying Disney. Also the fact it was a short parody bit inside the context of a much larger episode would work against a potential infringement case.
Disney could still have chosen to attempt to sue, but they’d probably have had a rough go of it.
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose, the seminal case on parody as fair use, was decided about seven months before that episode aired.
And in the Simpsons case, it’d be Disney’s mega-team of lawyers vs. Fox’s mega-team of lawyers. Disney’s team is probably larger and better-funded, but it’d be close, and Fox could certainly afford to go to trial, if need be (at which point they’d very likely win). With a small indie filmmaker, though, they probably can’t afford to stand up to Disney in court, especially since there’s a good chance they’d lose. I’m guessing the folks who made those two projects never even consulted with a lawyer at all, and just figured that copyright expiring meant that it was open season. Which is a conclusion that Disney is very motivated to discourage.
At this point, those might be the same lawyers; after the 32nd season, Disney acquired the production company.
Great post. Learned a lot. I have one question, though.
I get that defending your trademark is required under the law. I don’t get what “defending” actually requires. Your post, lists J&J sending a stern letter as an example of defending a trademark. It also lists Mattel (Barbie Girl) and several instances of Disney filing a lawsuit as defending a trademark (which I’d guess they also sent a letter prior to the lawsuit).
Anyways, are both valid ways to defend? Are there other ways outside of letters and lawsuits? Is it just a matter of the publicity or a matter if the company wants to actually shut it down (versus just establishing a paper trail as you mentioned).
Just noticed this is an old post I’m responding to, so anyone can respond. Thanks
You want to both shut it down and establish a paper trail. If you don’t shut it down, someone can make the argument that the term has become genericized. See, Aspirin, cellophane, dry ice, escalator, etc.
If you aren’t trying to hold people accountable, that can be used as an argument for the term being genericized. Other things might be even more important, like not using the brand name in a genericized way yourself. That’s what got Bayer in trouble with Aspirin.
There are no hard and fast rules. A simple letter can often suffice. It really depends on what the expected result is.
If they think a letter will work, great. It’s a fast, cheap first step. Sometimes, that’s not enough and somebody continues to infringe. And then you escalate. Most people and companies don’t want to do that, because it costs time and money to do so.
Depending on the context, there may be other things to do than letters and lawsuits. Sometimes there are 3rd parties involved and you can ask them to intervene. Or PR campaigns. Or anything else (within the bounds of law). But it really can’t be just a pro forma objection - you can lose your trademark if somebody can convince a judge you aren’t really trying to seriously defend it.
What got Bayer in trouble was World War I. Bayer’s foreign assets and trademarks were seized by Allied governments who had little interest in defending the trademark.
Yeah, the aspirin example is probably not the best due to how confusing and convoluted it is. You can try to reclaim trademarks which is what Bayer was trying to do, but in the attempt used the term as a noun a bunch of times. Or in other words, in a generic way.
Companies now take great pains to only use the trademark as an adjective with some sort of trademark symbol.