I was reading an article about Disney and it reminded me of something that I sometimes think about: Mickey Mouse is the unquestionable center of the Disney universe to the point where his silhouette is a synonym for the company as a whole however, Disney produces almost no Mickey Mouse cartoons or movies and hasn’t for a long time. I can’t think of the last time they released something other than maybe some video games where he was the center protagonist.
Is there any other mascot that is more invisible than Mickey? I am not sure I can think of a character that is simultaneously hidden yet ubiquitous the way he is. Is there another?
I guess comparisons can only be made where the mascot is also a product which is a rather rare breed to start with. But, yeah, Mickey is pretty unique in being the brand for a whole lot of stuff that has nothing to do with him.
I’ve wondered about that, too. Especially since, in his rare appearances, he usually appears with characters like Donald Duck and Goofy… but they’ve had their own shows, which show them inhabiting conspicuously mouseless universes.
Well, OK, Donald didn’t exactly have his own show, but he made an occasional appearance on Duck Tales, enough to make it clear that he existed within that universe.
There’s also a documentary on Disney+ that covers the history of Mickey, and how for many people he is only seen as a mascot and not an actual cartoon character, especially true for people who were kids in the 70s, 80s and 90s.
For older people and younger people, this isn’t necessarily the case. My kids, who grew up watching the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse and now watch the Wonderful World of Mickey Mouse and the MM shorts, he’s very much a cartoon character and not just a corporate symbol
Disney have started using the original Mickey Mouse on their production slates. It has been suggested that this might be a legal move to show the original Mickey is an integral part of the Disney brand as that version of Mickey goes out of copyright in the US in 2024.
Duncan Hines was a real man, a restaurant critic. His name is attached to a line of cake mixes and related items, but I don’t believe his image is depicted anywhere on them.
You’re mixing up two different sorts of intellectual property. Micky Mouse himself is not copyrighted. Works containing Mickey Mouse are copyrighted. The oldest of those works is due to go out of copyright next January. Micky Mouse himself, in all of his versions, is a trademark, and trademarks have no expiration date.
Pac-Man is the unofficial mascot of Namco and he’s constantly being merchandised and his games rereleased but new games or shows with him tend to only occur semi-occasionally. I believe several years ago there was a kids CGI cartoon but I can’t remember the last legitimate new game with Pac-Man that wasn’t just a crossover or cameo.
The intellectual property issues are not that clear:
Disney holds both copyright and trademark protections for the Mickey Mouse character. Copyright protection expires; trademark doesn’t. So even after all significant Mickey Mouse copyrights have expired, Disney could potentially use trademark law as a weapon against unauthorized Mickey Mouse products.
Grimmelmann calls this a “messy area for IP law.” The big question for trademark law is whether consumers are confused about the origin of the product—in this case, whether they believe a product is official Disney merchandise. That might be an easier case for Disney to win if someone used Mickey’s image to market an unrelated product like toothpaste.
But a company selling a Mickey Mouse toy or a new movie featuring Mickey Mouse would likely be on firmer legal ground, Grimmelmann argues. He points to a 2003 case where a company called Dastar republished portions of a television documentary based on a Dwight Eisenhower book. The copyright for the documentary had not been renewed, putting it into the public domain. Dastar edited it to strip out the original credits and present it as a Dastar production.
Ettore Boiardi sold spaghetti sauce from his restaurant in Cleveland, eventually turning it into a major food producer on the name Chef Boyardee. After WWII he sold the company but remained the spokesman until 1978. His picture is still on the packaging but I don’t think they’ve done anything with the character in decades.
Unlike other characters such as Donald or Goofy, Mickey Mouse doesn’t really have a strong, easily-identifiable personality or character traits. I’m not especially well-versed in things Disney, but it seems to me that Disney use Mickey when they want a sort of “everyman” character, or when they want to take advantage of his already-established mascot status.
Grimmelmann also goes on to point out all the ways that Mickey is still protected in details, like his white gloves, even though the first three movies were made in 1928 and can be freely sold. Some people will want to use the original films in various ways, from sincere homage to scurrilous smears to crass money making. They can.
The issue Grimmelman and others are arguing concerns the use of the Mouse in new, not previously published, material. Companies are probably free to use the exact representation of 1928 Mickey in the those movies next year in new material, and additional details as the years pass. But no more, and with the weight of Disney’s entire legal team bearing down on them watching and waiting.
The article is clear that similarities exist from other properties, but, as usual in IP law, exact precedents are impossible to find. Unlike Sherlock Holmes, probably the closest equivalent case, Mickey’s image is more important than the words. That image evolved over decades and is protected by trademark law. So are all other Disney characters. Only Minnie and Pete (not yet Peg-Leg Pete) were in the 1928 films, therefore the Disney universe is not available.
People are very clever at adhering to the line (and at touching it and at slipping over without being caught). The Dope is a two-decade long, million-post example of that. No doubt we’ll see an unholy number of efforts that will stress Disney’s lawyers and not be amenable to ChatGPT legal analysis. Disney made $28 billion next year. $280 million in lawyer’s fees? A piffle. I wouldn’t worry about the Mouse’s future.
I was going to suggest HSBC as a parallel. Originally Hong Kong & Shanghai Banking Corporation, but now a global bank headquartered in London, with the name changed to just the initials. But on checking, I was surprised to discover that around 40% of revenue & profit is still from China.
I had a Mickey Mouse watch. “Mickey Mouse” has long been used to designate cheap, low quality merchandise, and “Mickey Mouse Watch” was commonly used metaphorically for any faulty device. Mine was a nice pocket watch, not cheap. Not Rolex quality, but probably average for a basic pocket watch. Probably a licensed product too.
I don’t hear “Mickey Mouse” used in that manner much anymore, but growing up an actual Mickey Mouse watch was it’s own joke.
I’ve long been familiar with the term “mickey mouse” as an adjective meaning “trivial” or “low quality” (dictionary cites here and here). I’d also known about Mickey Mouse watches, though I can’t remember when or whether I’ve seen one in real life. I hadn’t realized that there was a connection, but this cite agrees: