Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

clickorlando.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 85 posts

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#71

Post by burnt-resistor »

flkiwi wrote: post #13

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…

And it's advertised relentlessly on Youtube like Honey, BetterHelp, SurfShark, NordVPN, RocketMoney, Incogni, and Ground News so it's probably trash too.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#72

Post by Flimm »

gamblor956 wrote: post #55
hamdingers wrote: post #16

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).

This isn't a copyright case, it's a trademark case. The issue is that some of the specific expressions of the elements may be extremely distinctive, and trademarked by a person (or company) for commercial use. In those situations, you can still use the element, but not the specific expression of that element that is trademarked because that specific expression is being used by another person for ongoing commercial ac…

The Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne are no longer under copyright, that copyright expired. However, the Disney animations of Winnie the Pooh are still under copyright, and they have a distinctive style compared to the illustrations in the books. It's mainly about copyright, not trademarks.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#73

Post by ab5tract »

Terr_ wrote: post #60
gamblor956 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USPTO search reveals...0 trademarks of "Jesus Christ" because its not trademarkable. There are a number of longer phrases which include the phrase "Jesus Christ" that are trademarked (either as logos or as phrases), but that is a very different thing.

I'm not sure how you got from "the example logo contains Jesus Christ" to "the company name must be this exact string."

But your example just proves that the trademark avenue is not a genuine moat for Disney. If dozens of trademarks have been given for logos containing Jesus Christ, then there can be dozens of logos containing Steamboat Willie.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#74

Post by wbshaw »

jrs235 wrote: post #51
flkiwi wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Most Florida contingency fees will be about 1/3 of collectible settlement/awards.

...after expenses which can be considerable.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#75

Post by hearsathought »

flkiwi wrote: post #13

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…

> They also depend heavily on advertising.

They are all over social media ( tiktok,youtube ) crime videos. Never heard of them until I started watching crime videos online.

> Apropos of nothing, the firm's founder, John Morgan, has been instrumental in attempting to legalize marijuana in Florida

Makes sense. There is some correlation between drug use and crime.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#76

Post by scotty79 »

> demonstrating Disney’s continued protection of its intellectual property rights despite the copyright expiration

That's some insane mental gymnastics. If copyright expired the IP is no longer theirs. And they don't protect but make extortion attempt under false pretense instead with use of fraudulent claims.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#77

Post by thaumasiotes »

flkiwi wrote: post #25
technothrasher wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation. To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or not, over 90% of civil cases in general in the US settle before a trial commences.

That's true, though I wonder at times how much of that is because of the way plaintiff's firms set the market up. And, again, I don't really mean to criticize them--I tend to err on the side of access to justice--as much as to explain to anyone non-US who tf M&M are and why this is interesting.

> That's true, though I wonder at times how much of that is because of the way plaintiff's firms set the market up.

My understanding is that over 90% of criminal cases also settle before trial commences.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#78

Post by thaumasiotes »

zdragnar wrote: post #65
Terr_ wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> not the [historical figure] actual names, as that falls under the "right of publicity" IANAL but I don't think it'd be blocked for that reason: "Right of publicity" is a per-state affair, where it exists it may not be posthumous, where it is posthumous it may not include historical figures, and even if it could apply, there's there's no credible estate/heir of Jesus Christ with standing. ... But I gotta admit it wo…

Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule. Notably, from your link: > Therefore, a trademark is "not property in the ordinary sense," but only a word or symbol indicating the origin or source of a product. > Although its registration is limited to the words "Babe Ruth," Pirone would have us read her rights in that word mark to include every photograph of Ruth ever taken. We decline…

> Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule.

That obviously can't apply to use of the name or imagery of Jesus Christ; there is a much more important federal rule that says it is everyone's God-given right to assert directly that they are endorsed by Jesus Christ.

(This comment is imbued with the divine grace of the Messiah.)

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#79

Post by lsaferite »

Flimm wrote: post #72
gamblor956 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a copyright case, it's a trademark case. The issue is that some of the specific expressions of the elements may be extremely distinctive, and trademarked by a person (or company) for commercial use. In those situations, you can still use the element, but not the specific expression of that element that is trademarked because that specific expression is being used by another person for ongoing commercial ac…

The Winnie the Pooh books by A. A. Milne are no longer under copyright, that copyright expired. However, the Disney animations of Winnie the Pooh are still under copyright, and they have a distinctive style compared to the illustrations in the books. It's mainly about copyright, not trademarks.

All things considered, I prefer the original illustrations myself.

Re: Morgan and Morgan takes Disney to court over 'Steamboat Willie' in ads

#80

Post by zdragnar »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #78
zdragnar wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule. Notably, from your link: > Therefore, a trademark is "not property in the ordinary sense," but only a word or symbol indicating the origin or source of a product. > Although its registration is limited to the words "Babe Ruth," Pirone would have us read her rights in that word mark to include every photograph of Ruth ever taken. We decline…

> Hence why I included the bit about false endorsement, which is a federal rule. That obviously can't apply to use of the name or imagery of Jesus Christ; there is a much more important federal rule that says it is everyone's God-given right to assert directly that they are endorsed by Jesus Christ. (This comment is imbued with the divine grace of the Messiah.)

A person may assert their beliefs, but those beliefs do not extend to trademark law, most especially in the context of "sue everyone else who uses the name of a historical religious figure that I have decided to take for myself".
Post reply on HN