41–50 of 85 posts
Hmmm this is a preemptive lawsuit from Morgan and Morgan for clarity, which seems to be in bad form Morgan and Morgan should just launch the commercial, it sounds hilarious
Not a lawyer, but to bring a lawsuit in the US you typically have to show that you've suffered a real injury that the court can remedy. How can Morgan and Morgan establish standing here?
Hmmm this is a preemptive lawsuit from Morgan and Morgan for clarity, which seems to be in bad form Morgan and Morgan should just launch the commercial, it sounds hilarious
> Hmmm this is a preemptive lawsuit from Morgan and Morgan for clarity, which seems to be in bad form Not a lawyer, but to bring a lawsuit in the US you typically have to show that you've suffered a real injury that the court can remedy. How can Morgan and Morgan establish standing here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve never heard of a regulation governing attorney’s fees. Which regulations might you be referring to?
For example, Florida Bar Rule 4-1.5(a) prohibits "clearly excessive" attorney's fees, while 4-1.5(f)(4)(B) sets several criteria for contingency fees (typically the sort of fees a plaintiff's firm would charge) that, if not met, renders a fee presumptively "clearly excessive".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I wrong in thinking this makes more sense than decades/centuries long copyrights? Let the copyright on a work expire so I can share my copy of Toy Story with my friends, but retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies (or theme parks or pajamas).
> retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies Here's a quick thought experiment: Suppose I create a small movie company based on another character also in the public domain, and I successfully receive a trademark for my logo, which is... Jesus Christ. Does/Should that give me control over anyone selling or distributing other books, movies, pictures, and songs depicting J…
On this case specifically, you can't make a Mickey Mouse cartoon in a way that looks like it came from Disney. That's all that the trademark protects.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're talking about parody though, there's case law suggesting it would be fine: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/intellectual_property_law...
Maybe I'm just not up on my understanding, but I don't see how this is parody? There's not really any jokes, it's not a commentary on Disney, Disney's Mice, or boating or driving or society at large. Maybe running into a car on the road with a boat is a joke, I guess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Am I wrong in thinking this makes more sense than decades/centuries long copyrights? Let the copyright on a work expire so I can share my copy of Toy Story with my friends, but retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies (or theme parks or pajamas).
But why shouldn't you be able to make a new Toy Story movie 100 years, give or take, after the original?
But ten years
A decade is enough
IP is a trade off, and the balance is wonky
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Hmmm this is a preemptive lawsuit from Morgan and Morgan for clarity, which seems to be in bad form Not a lawyer, but to bring a lawsuit in the US you typically have to show that you've suffered a real injury that the court can remedy. How can Morgan and Morgan establish standing here?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaratory_judgment
Morgan and Morgan is a plaintiffs firm specializing in personal injury (though they have other areas of practice). For those not familiar with the US system, if someone hits a victim with their car, a victim slips and falls in a store, etc. and the victim sues, Morgan and Morgan commonly handles that type of case for the victim. Basically the usual "Americans will sue each other for anything" type of law firm (though…
This is basically what we have in the US instead of a strong regulatory state. One of the few ways consumers might seek justice against a giant corporation.
Title is incorrect. The firm isn't taking Disney to court. They are asking the court to look at their ad and confirm that it doesn't infringe on Disney's trademark, thus shielding themselves from future lawsuits from Disney.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The suit is about trademark. Whether it'll fly or not is up in the air, but that's the reason that Disney actively made the "Steamboat Willie" version part of their pre-film branding.
I think in a sane world (heh) using "Steamboat Willie" should only be impaired by Disney trademark exactly as much (or as little) as people would be prevented from sharing pictures of the Statue of Liberty just because some tax-preparation company has a photo-realistic outline in their logo. In both cases the company has zero rights to the underlying public thing, and the court just needs to ask: "Is someone trying t…
If they can meet the bar established in TDRA they can probably squash all usage of Willie, even in unrelated-industries usage not intended to confuse consumers, in the same way that you can't market "Coca-Cola bedsheets" or a "Google Bicycle" without a license from the trademark holder.