disney and pixar being sued

[hrcollectibles]

and why did it take luxo 20 years to complain and sue?

Because they are probably not selling lights like they used to with the economy being the way it is. I can guarantee that had the merger not worked out and was not as successful they would not be getting sued.

The same reason the stupid World Wildlife Fund took 20 years to sue WWE!

Everybody's got a price... I think the main reason was to give job security to the guy that has to edit all the old WWF footage to blur out the logos.

 

[gsimpson]

Disney dropping the ball on IP, wow

Disney, who worked tirelessly to get copyright laws changed to extend the exclusive rights to Mickey and other characters, certainly should have known better. Hopefully Luxo will stick to their guns and give Disney a taste of the assertive legal action that Disney tends to take toward anyone who infringes on their IP.

I am normally very pro-Disney but tend the opposite way when it comes to their "physical" products. Even though they charge a premium price the quality, in my experience, trends toward the typical poor quality you get from "cheap as possible" Chinese manufacturing. During the last two Christmas season many of Disney's toys were caught up in the lead paint festivities and there have been several other recalls. It would be nice if they could make more of their products domestically but we all know that won't happen because cost is king. Like most large publicly traded companies Wall Street forces them to shave costs all the time and quality and safety can suffer, thanks Wall Street.

I have a couple of real Luxo lamps in my lab and can't imagine the ones from Disney/Pixar will be nearly as well built or amazingly balanced.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Holy carp!:ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL:


Some of those are pretty messed up, though.:lol:

 

[unkadug]

Holy carp!:ROFLOL::ROFLOL::ROFLOL:


Some of those are pretty messed up, though.:lol:

Not very appropriate for here IMHO.

 

[EpcotServo]

This thread is hysterical.:lol::lol::lookaroun

:lol:

I'm sorry, but the real takeaway of this thread is hilarity, and the fact that to this day Pokemon remains A: Fantastic games, B: A Great Show, C: Also a great TCG, and D: Slowpoke, Snorlax, and Jigglypuff are still the best.


Speaking of which...I'm in a Pokemon mood after this thread. Anyone want to get their decks out and play with me?
:lookaroun

 

[majortom1981]

hmm

Unlike most people think this is outright copyright infringement.

Now that disney is doing more with luxo then just in thhe begining of movies they are infringing. IF all the company does is manufacturing lamps this could hurt them a lot.

So you guys are saying i can you the brand name Disney to sell my own products? Dont be hypocrites.

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

Not very appropriate for here IMHO.

True.

:lol:

I'm sorry, but the real takeaway of this thread is hilarity, and the fact that to this day Pokemon remains A: Fantastic games, B: A Great Show, C: Also a great TCG, and D: Slowpoke, Snorlax, and Jigglypuff are still the best.


Speaking of which...I'm in a Pokemon mood after this thread. Anyone want to get their decks out and play with me?
:lookaroun

I collected, but didn't play.(Charzard Holo 1st Edition Japanese FTW?!)

DID play Yu-Gi-Oh, though.:lol: I was pretty good, too.

 

[EpcotServo]

True.


I collected, but didn't play.(Charzard Holo 1st Edition Japanese FTW?!)

DID play Yu-Gi-Oh, though.:lol: I was pretty good, too.

Pokemon TCG was a blast to play. (Bit biased since I love playing Trading Card Games.)

Only bought and played Yu-gi-oh once. I think the reason it wasn't strong for me, was because the Anime is way worse than Pokemon. (Seriously, the Pokemon Movies still hold up great.) And of course the Gaming, from the Gameboy games to Pokemon Snap and Stadium for the N64 which still rank as some of my favorite Video Games for the 64.

*Otaku History of the World*

 

[Figment632]

Well thats not entirely true. The World Wild Life Fund made a deal with WWWF in the 80`s when Vince Mcmahon was out buying up all the wrestling territories. Vince wanted to shorten the name to WWF, but it was already taken. So a deal was made. Like many people the World Wild Life Fund was sickened by the attitude era in WWF and sued them thinking people would think they were associated with one another. So WWE was born.
On the subject of WWE, they have always had to license the name Hulk (as in Hulk Hogan) from Marvel Comics. I guess now they will be associated with Disney in that regard if they ever make another Hulk DVD.

Well the World Wild Life Funds should have used WWLF as their website the attitude era was the best era of wrestling ever,

 

[Brian_B]

I would think they would be honored that such a great company uses their product as a mascot.

Ah, sweet naivete.

 

[flashinghelmet]

Well the World Wild Life Funds should have used WWLF as their website the attitude era was the best era of wrestling ever,

except, 'wildlife' is one word.

Plus, only those with insecurity issues with their mothers like WWE :slurp::zipit:

 

[Disneybub]

except, 'wildlife' is one word.

Plus, only those with insecurity issues with their mothers like WWE :slurp::zipit:

hmmmm... thats a little judgemental, And has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[flashinghelmet]

hmmmm... thats a little judgemental, And has nothing to do with the thread.

For shame! Humour lost on my Welsh compatriot!! I would expect it from our Yankee friends...

Must be from deep in the valleys.

 

[Figment632]

except, 'wildlife' is one word.

Plus, only those with insecurity issues with their mothers like WWE :slurp::zipit:

That doesn't mean the initials can't be WWLF and I never understood how anyone would mistake a giant Panda and HHH?

 

[flashinghelmet]

That doesn't mean the initials can't be WWLF and I never understood how anyone would mistake a giant Panda and HHH?

Of course it does! It's an acronym, not a 'just use random letters from the company name' abbreviation.

 

[Figment632]

Of course it does! It's an acronym, not a 'just use random letters from the company name' abbreviation.

My whole point is that it was ok for WWE to use it all those years and all of a sudden they don't like the content and it's not. I'm sorry but there are far and I mean far more people who went to wwf.com looking for wrestling and not a mongoose, there shouldn't have any confusion. Besides before they made this stink, most people never heard of the World Wildlife Fund.

 

[WDWFigment]

My whole point is that it was ok for WWE to use it all those years and all of a sudden they don't like the content and it's not. I'm sorry but there are far and I mean far more people who went to wwf.com looking for wrestling and not a mongoose, there shouldn't have any confusion. Besides before they made this stink, most people never heard of the World Wildlife Fund.

So if a website started using WDW as its logo and advertised on that basis, it would be acceptable because there is enough to differentiate the Disney brand and the ography? There's little likelihood for confusion, but you better believe Disney would litigate. Any responsible company would do the same thing if a morally reprehensible organization were using one of its trade names. Sorry to the 'pro' wrestling fans in here, but there certainly are more than a few aspects of wrestling that a lot of members of the general public find objectionable.

I know most people around here like to argue without any knowledge of the facts or law (by the way, let's see those domain traffic stats proving 'far and I mean far' more people visited wwf.com looking for wrestling), but this didn't just come out of nowhere. The World Wildlife Fund sued the Wrestling organization in 2000 because the terms of a 1994 agreement had been breached. If the Wrestling org. had a problem with the terms of the agreement, 1994 would have been the time to argue it. Not 2000. The argument for breach is wholly different than what the argument would have been in 1994.

 

[Figment632]

So if a website started using WDW as its logo and advertised on that basis, it would be acceptable because there is enough to differentiate the Disney brand and the ography? There's little likelihood for confusion, but you better believe Disney would litigate. Any responsible company would do the same thing if a morally reprehensible organization were using one of its trade names. Sorry to the 'pro' wrestling fans in here, but there certainly are more than a few aspects of wrestling that a lot of members of the general public find objectionable.

I know most people around here like to argue without any knowledge of the facts or law (by the way, let's see those domain traffic stats proving 'far and I mean far' more people visited wwf.com looking for wrestling), but this didn't just come out of nowhere. The World Wildlife Fund sued the Wrestling organization in 2000 because the terms of a 1994 agreement had been breached. If the Wrestling org. had a problem with the terms of the agreement, 1994 would have been the time to argue it. Not 2000. The
argument for breach is wholly different than what the argument would have
been in 1994.

Does Disneys website have WDW in it becasue I thought it was www.Disneyworld.com?

 

[WDWFigment]

Does Disneys website have WDW in it becasue I thought it was www.Disneyworld.com?

I didn't realize a domain name was the only issue in this matter. My mistake. I must've misread those legal documents pertaining to the World Wildlife Fund matter.

 

[Figment632]

I didn't realize a domain name was the only issue in this matter. My mistake. I must've misread those legal documents pertaining to the World Wildlife Fund matter.

I was just asking a question about the example you used. And I'm not sure Disney would have a problem with WDWporn.com because they allow all that Disney princess on the web, I'm sure there's some legal loophole but I can't believe Disney allows that?