Disney Gets Early Loss In Trademark, Copyright Suit Against Unlicensed Birthday Party Characters
from the knock-it-off-knockoffs dept
Late last year, we discussed a lawsuit brought by Disney against Characters For Hire, a small company that sends costume characters to children's birthday parties. Those characters, as we said at the time, are barely-altered clear homages to storied Disney-owned characters, such as Dark Lord (Dearth Vader) and Big Hairy Guy (sigh, Chewbacca). While Disney sued over both trademark and copyright, the alterations to the characters and the very clear disclaimer Characters For Hire puts on its site and documents meant the chances for confusion as to Disney's affiliation was always non-existent. When you add that the changes in the characters and the medium in which they were offered at least partially put us in the idea/expression dichotomy zone for copyright law. That part of the law essentially says copyright applies to specific expressions (written stories, film, music, and sometimes characters), but not general ideas (a Dark Lord, a, sigh, Big Hairy Guy).
Well, nearly a year later, the first legal returns have come in and they are not great for Disney.
On Thursday, a New York federal judge refused to grant summary judgment in favor of Disney in its ongoing case against Nick Sarelli, alleged to run a "knock-off business ... built upon the infringement of Plaintiffs' highly valuable intellectual property rights."
What's more, U.S. District Court Judge George Daniels threw out most of Disney's trademark claims against a defendant who will send out individuals dressed as "The Princess" (meaning Leia) or "Big Hairy Guy" (meaning Chewbacca) for special events.
Daniels recognizes some similarity, but isn't buying that Disney and Sarelli compete in the same business nor that Sarelli's customers are likely to be confused. The judge makes the point that it's "adults, not children" who plan parties and there's no evidence of actual confusion.
This is roughly as predicted in our original post. The trademark claims were far less likely to succeed due to all the steps Characters For Hire took to explicitly make sure that the public wasn't confused when buying from it. Disney's evidence mostly amounted to customer reviews for the Characters For Hire that occasionally referenced the original characters being paid homage, but the judge found that even in those comments there was nothing indicating confusion. Instead, it seemed that parents knew full well they were buying so-called knockoffs, making the trademark claims unwarranted. The only trademark claim that survives for trial, if it gets that far, will be for dilution.
The court also refused summary judgement for the copyright portion of Disney's claims, noting that Disney's lawyers presented for evidence poor-quality screenshots of Characters For Hire's website, including screenshots of site pages no longer active, but which were instead grabbed from the Internet Archive. The copyright claims, however, will go to trial, assuming Disney lets it get that far after these early losses.
The more likely outcome is that a settlement will be reached. With so little left to argue, Disney surely can't want to throw money for lawyer's fees just to keep some kids from having fun at their birthday parties... can it?
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: birthday parties, characters, copyright, trademark
Companies: disney
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"With so little left to argue, Disney surely can't want to throw money for lawyer's fees just to keep some kids from having fun at their birthday parties... can it?"
I find your lack of faith... disturbing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
(Dearth Vader)
All hail the great and wise autocorrupt.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
HAIL HYDRATION!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
How many?
NOW, need to discuss things with Disney to get products out for the Major series, that Disnay(I spelled it right) has bought in the recent past...and in the last 20 years..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You'd think Disney could afford to hire lawyers that know the difference between trademark and copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Well, when Disney learned about it, they sued it, and it took a long time to resolve. During that time, my ever creative friend struck a deal with Disney, eventually securing exclusive rights to provide Disney birthday party services with big breasted ladies in return for a small royalty, and now he is richer than ever.
My point is that sometimes good things happen when you least expect it, if you are open to positive outcomes.
On the other hand, if your mission is only to grouse and complain, things seldom (if ever) get better.
Be open to happiness and it will find you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I'd ask you for a name of such a service to know that it exists, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]