New Infringement Defense? 'We Don't Roll That Way'

Disney Sued For Selling The Pixar Lamp... And The Lawsuit Makes Sense

from the ok,-here-we-go... dept

Fri, Sep 11th 2009 1:35pm — Mike Masnick

We usually focus on trademark lawsuits that make no sense at all... but effective trademark law exists to prevent confusion among consumers (i.e., it's really more of a consumer protection law, rather than an "intellectual property" law) and thus there are plenty of reasonable trademark infringement lawsuits out there. This appears to be one of them. Lamp maker Luxo is apparently suing Disney for selling real versions of Pixar's iconic computer animated lamp. Pixar, of course, has long used the lamp as a part of its logo:

At first, I thought perhaps Luxo was suing Disney because of the similarities to Luxo's lamps. But the issue is that Disney is now selling a real version of the Pixar lamp... and bizarrely decided to market it as "The Luxo Jr." Yes, everyone admits that John Lasseter designed the lamp to look like the Luxo lamp, but why call it that when selling it? It's amazing that of all the trademark lawyers at Disney, none of them suspected there might be a complaint from the real Luxo, if Disney were to sell a lamp using the Luxo name. This is a situation where not only a moron in a hurry, but your everyday lamp buyer, might reasonably assume that the Disney Luxo Jr. lamp is actually made by Luxo.

So, two questions: who at Disney allowed this to go forward? And why didn't Disney and Luxo just do the most obvious thing and have Luxo make the lamps for Disney?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: lamp, trademark
Companies: disney, luxo, pixar

37 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

johnjac (profile), 11 Sep 2009 @ 1:16pm

Disney Colored Glasses
Given this story and the Ellen DeGeneres story I'm starting to think that 'intellectual property owners' tend to see the world through glassed tinted by their own 'intellectual property.' That everywhere they look they only see the world as it relates to (and copies) their IP, and they are unable to see the IP of belonging to anyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 11 Sep 2009 @ 1:38pm

Profits all around.
Why doesn't Disney just ask Luxo to produce the lamp and slap a Disney/Pixar label on it? Profits all around.
(duh)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2009 @ 1:39pm

Re: Disney Colored Glasses
You think???
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ima Fish (profile), 11 Sep 2009 @ 1:41pm

"... And The Lawsuit Makes Sense"

Yep, this is exactly the sort of situation trademark is supposed to cover. Disney's action and reaction is quite bizarre.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TheStupidOne, 11 Sep 2009 @ 1:46pm

Re: Profits all around.
too obvious for the suits to figure out
[ link to this | view in thread ]
johnjac (profile), 11 Sep 2009 @ 1:51pm

Re: Profits all around.
Looking on Amazon, this looks like a plastic toy basically. Had they called this a toy and not a lamp they may have gotten away with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2009 @ 2:12pm

A red letter day!
A lawsuit that makes sense. Is the world ending?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
scarr (profile), 11 Sep 2009 @ 2:12pm

Re: Profits all around.
I doubt you're the first person to have that idea.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
diff, 11 Sep 2009 @ 2:26pm

Disney's got some cajones
Wow. I'm not sure what's more surprising: The fact that none of the legal people at Disney thought that this might be an issue; or the fact that Disney is selling this "inferior quality" lamp along with a DVD for $120.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Glaze, 11 Sep 2009 @ 2:26pm

Re: A red letter day!
Yup... Wednesday was the end of the world as we all know it, and yes hell hath definitely frozen over.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2009 @ 2:26pm

I guess certain attorney's in Disney's employ have never heard of clearing a trademark before adopting it. Clearly someone was asleep at the switch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
HtR, 11 Sep 2009 @ 2:36pm

The name of the original short film with the lamp made by Pixar was called "Luxo Jr.". Personally, I had no idea that Luxo was the name of an actual lamp company, so I can imagine that someone at Disney approved this without realizing it either. Still, before manufacturing and selling a new product, you would think this is the kind of thing they would check out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
spencerMatthewP, 11 Sep 2009 @ 2:37pm

I hate to say it ...
This may be an example of why there is such a large amount of over-zealous trade mark protection. Luxo the lamp company did not sue Pixar when it became famous using the Luxo Jr. logo. (At that point in time it had not bee absorbed by Disney.) It's pretty obvious that would not pass the moron in a hurry test. No one would confuse the lamp maker with the Computer animation company at that point.
Unfortunately, that may have lead Disney to believe that Luxo did not have a problem with them using they're trademarked look (or name) in a product. Now, they take it too far.
It's unfortunate, but I can see the flow of logic here. It's like when mom says it's okay to have a cookie, so it must be okay to have two (or three). This sucks all the way around because now it will be held up as a shining example of why companies need to protect their TMs at all cost to prevent someone from encroaching on their turf. Sad really.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2009 @ 3:00pm

Re:
Actually, they should have....the modelled the original character after a Luxo lamp, the reason why the short was called 'Luxo Jr.'. Of course this way back when Pixar was a independant, fledgeling company.....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Howard B, 11 Sep 2009 @ 3:22pm

From my experience, Disney pretty much does whatever they please. Barring that, it could also be that someone from their usually shark-like legal department simply dropped the ball somewhere.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BWilliams (profile), 11 Sep 2009 @ 3:33pm

It does seem pretty strange...
I don't think anybody was thinking in this case. Obviously Luxo should have been the one to make the lamp and then there wouldn't have been any issue - but seriously, disney who is so crazy about their own trademarks should know better. I wouldn't create a stuffed mouse and sell it as mickey jr. that's for sure.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Darren M, 11 Sep 2009 @ 3:33pm

Perhaps it was on purpose
Imagine making such an obvious legal blunder and all the free media coverage that comes with that. Strike a deal with the lamp maker and your marketing campaign is underway.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Sep 2009 @ 3:41pm

Why did Disney do it?
Because the D is short for devil, and the isney is there as bull shit to distract you from that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dohn Joe, 11 Sep 2009 @ 5:16pm

Because...
"Disney don't roll that way"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mr Big Content, 11 Sep 2009 @ 6:00pm

It’s All Quite Simple, Really
Think of it this way: Disney are a content company. They own the copyright on “Luxo, Jr”. Luxo are a company that makes lamps; they own the trademark on the name “Luxo”.

So Disney are selling this lamp as content. Therefore they’re entitled to apply their “Luxo, Jr” copyright, since the lamp is clearly a derivative work copied from the film. If Luxo try to stop them on the grounds of trademark infringement, then they’re infringing Disney’s copyright.

So you see, the Intellectual Property law is quite clear-cut, once you learn how to properly apply it in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casey, 11 Sep 2009 @ 6:08pm

RE: It’s All Quite Simple, Really
It's a sad commentary that your scenario might actually be used by Disney lawyers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DMNTD, 11 Sep 2009 @ 6:10pm

Re: RE: Itâ��s All Quite Simple, Really
Even though its backwards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vikram Rajan, 11 Sep 2009 @ 6:48pm

PIXAR lamp
or just call it the Disney Pixar Lamp.. that seems more obv
[ link to this | view in thread ]
R. Miles (profile), 11 Sep 2009 @ 6:57pm

Luxo shouldn't sue, but get even.
I think Luxo should give away free Pixar movies (via a DVD copy) with every lamp purchased.

Hey, what's good for the goose, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andy (profile), 12 Sep 2009 @ 12:24am

Re:
Not only do Disney do what they like, they usually have the law behind them and I guess by now they figure that the law really exists to protect Disney period.

It's no myth that the "motto" inside that company is: "You don't f*ck with the Mouse"!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
..., 12 Sep 2009 @ 6:30am

Re: Itâ��s All Quite Simple, Really
You forgot the sarcasm tag
[ link to this | view in thread ]
..., 12 Sep 2009 @ 6:36am

You save $79
Wow, what a deal ! It was $200 /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enrico Suarve, 14 Sep 2009 @ 3:41am

Right back 'atcha
Does anyone else relish listening to the arguments from Disney's lawyers then applying them to cases from Disney's past? ;0)

Hold tight onto them and get ready to use them in future - by opening this door Disney's own lawyers are stepping into a minefield and hopefully the rest of the world will be able to follow them through it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2009 @ 7:20am

synergy for Luxo and Disney.
If I was Luxo I would be happy that Disney is promoting your product in such a highly visible position and positively. But it is a dam shame for Disney to just start making a lamp and selling it as a Luxo. You would think this would have been an excellent opportunity for synergy.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
known coward, 14 Sep 2009 @ 9:00am

I can't believe i am the first to say it
I bet it was approved by some mickey mouse in the legal dept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2009 @ 5:45pm

Re: synergy for Luxo and Disney.
missing /s
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WannabeSmart, 11 Oct 2009 @ 8:49am

Hummm
Just to try to imagine what may have crossed the mind of law people at Disney...
I would like to know if there was, and wat kind of agreement existed between Pixar and Luxo at the time of the production of the animation film "Luxo Jr.". Let's say that Luxo agreed at that time that the character named "Luxo Jr." was property of Pixar, Disney lawyers may have thought that selling related products to the character would not lead to contestation they could not overcome.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
D.Kichi, 27 Nov 2009 @ 2:34am

Luxo Jr. et al
As someone who's worked for Disney and now hates them with a passion because they are pretentious dictators who hire nice ppl like myself and turn us into angry anti-disney haters while they're pretending to have the customer's best interest when it's really money that they are after. I hope to god Luxo gets a big generous settlement because Disney is an evil empire that needs to be taught a lesson for once. The world would be a better place if Disney were sued more often and lost to whoever sued them esp. the little people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lurking Coward, 16 May 2011 @ 11:19am

Disney has violated MY trademark
my penis has been named "Mickey, the one-eyed trouser Mouse" for over 50 years. So all their movies are pr0n. You just don't see the subliminals.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DogBreath, 16 May 2011 @ 11:55am

Re: Disney has violated MY trademark
So that explains how the boat "Steamboat Willie" got it's name. Thanks for finally posting that, the subliminal trivia fans will go nuts for this factoid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lee'Nasia, 19 Sep 2011 @ 10:53am

Disney!
thats sum BULL FUCKING SHIT BITCH!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dr Evil, 18 May 2012 @ 6:12am

yelling infringement in a crowded theater
Disney should have to pay $150,000 per infringing copy and give up their domain name.
[ link to this | view in thread ]