disney and pixar being sued

[JWG]

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.

I think another fair difference here is that Disney would have no agreement for this action/activity and would likely quickly move to cease. Though, I would argue just using "wdw" isn't a brand or logo infringement otherwise AAA would sue every "AAA Plumbing, "AAA Electrical" "AAA Awesomest Pizza Ever" out there. Everyone used to want to be first in the phone book.

Since World Wildlife Fund apparently had an agreement with WWF and then changed their mind, I think it's a bit unfortunate. I feel the same about the Luxo suit. You were ok with it for 23 years and now it's a problem? If the animated short was called Luxo Jr. then having a product (that looks the same as it did 23 years ago and is called the same thing) now should be ok, too. What's changed to make Disney's use offensive or harmful to the brand all of a sudden? Maybe Pixar had an agreement to use the Luxo name in that original short film sense only and have reached outside the agreement for an actual toy? Or, more likely, Disney's pockets are a hell of a lot deaper and there's an opportunity to settle because we know these things rarely make it to court. In my mind, Luxo's doing themselves more harm than Disney is. I don't think I'm going to confuse the fact that if I want a Luxo lamp that I can't buy it from Disney. And even if I do, I'm pretty sure Disney will quickly give me a strange look and chuckle when I stop in to ask them for one before letting me know how to find the real Luxo.

It's free advertising.

 

[_Scar]

princess

I love how only at WDW Magic we can go from a legal debate to princess . :ROFLOL::ROFLOL:

 

[CBOMB]

You would think for the $200 price tag they could put in an actual quality working Luxo lamp. Maybe they can work out a deal with Luxo and have them make the lamps being sold and let them share the profits, a partnership on limited merchandise would be a much better solution than to settle out of court and sweep the remnants under the rug.

Also to answer your question, you just type your word you want linked and then highlight it, then click the "Insert Link" Button and Voila

An actual LS series Luxo runs about $170 to $190 so they would have to increase the price a bit. Besides, you know how Disney would rather offer cheap plastic junk with a 4 disc set, and make a killing.

 

[tirian]

You were ok with it for 23 years and now it's a problem? If the animated short was called Luxo Jr. then having a product (that looks the same as it did 23 years ago and is called the same thing) now should be ok, too. What's changed to make Disney's use offensive or harmful to the brand all of a sudden? Maybe Pixar had an agreement to use the Luxo name in that original short film sense only and have reached outside the agreement for an actual toy? Or, more likely, Disney's pockets are a hell of a lot deaper and there's an opportunity to settle because we know these things rarely make it to court. In my mind, Luxo's doing themselves more harm than Disney is. I don't think I'm going to confuse the fact that if I want a Luxo lamp that I can't buy it from Disney. And even if I do, I'm pretty sure Disney will quickly give me a strange look and chuckle when I stop in to ask them for one before letting me know how to find the real Luxo.

It's free advertising.

No, Disney is selling someone else's intellectual rights as a cheaply made toy without clearing this with the other party first. Disney is profiting off something it neither owns nor licenses.

That's illegal.

Add me to the camp who can't believe Disney lawyers let this pass without questioning the repercussions!

p.s. The free advertising comes from the Pixar logo.

 

[Lee]

Add me to the camp who can't believe Disney lawyers let this pass without questioning the repercussions!

Not that surprising, really.
I seem to recall Disney selling a certain Tower of Terror t-shirt ......:lookaroun

:lol:

 

[unkadug]

No, Disney is selling someone else's intellectual rights as a cheaply made toy without clearing this with the other party first. Disney is profiting off something it neither owns nor licenses.

That's illegal.

Add me to the camp who can't believe Disney lawyers let this pass without questioning the repercussions!

p.s. The free advertising comes from the Pixar logo.

I agree 100%. Perhaps this was done by some green behind the ears marketing intern! :shrug:

 

[EPCOT Explorer]

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*

I agree...Poke was a bigger fad.


Remind me why I am talking about this?:lookaroun:lol:

Not that surprising, really.
I seem to recall Disney selling a certain Tower of Terror t-shirt ......:lookaroun

:lol:

Heh.:lookaroun

 

[EPCOTPluto]

I seem to recall Disney selling a certain Tower of Terror t-shirt ......:lookaroun

I think I know as well.... :lol:

 

[tirian]

How could I forget about that?! WOW! Did Martin ever get that resolved?

 

[EpcotServo]

I agree...Poke was a bigger fad.


Remind me why I am talking about this?:lookaroun:lol:

Well everything was quality...If "Fad" means alot of people pretending to be fans for a short period of time, it was indeed.

Why we're talking about it is because A: I'm rooting for Pixar. B: Pokemon will always be great.
:lol:

Please feel free to ignore my nostalgia for a much better time, when the first seedlings of Otaku knowledge started to plant itself in this generation.


A much, much better time...*Soul crushed by horrible shows and toys like Bakugon and Avatar, growing kids much much worse off, or letting them drift towards the Dark Side...Such as the current Disney Channel. *
:brick:

 

[Moltke]

I saw this online somewhere too - a news article. It seems odd to me that companies like Disney and Pixar - who have more attorneys per square foot than they do staff - would draw, animate and name a character after an existing product without knowing the consequences.

There's got to be some sort of agreement in place. This would obviously be copyright infringement, and there's no way the lawyers would have let them proceed this direction without compliance.

And contrary to their claim, Pixar's Juxo Jr could only increase sales of Luxo brand lamps. There is no negative publicity that could come from this.

They did not wait 23 years for anything. They had an ongoing deal with Pixar. But Pixar went to far beyond what they was supposed to, and broke the copyrigth and brand. Honored? I am not sure, if gorwn up Norwegian's appriciate having a brand which are a mascot for childrends cartoon series...

 

[trr1]

They did not wait 23 years for anything. They had an ongoing deal with Pixar. But Pixar went to far beyond what they was supposed to, and broke the copyrigth and brand. Honored? I am not sure, if gorwn up Norwegian's appriciate having a brand which are a mascot for childrends cartoon series...

welcome to the forum Moltke

 

[NX2I85]

Disney does this same kind of stuff to folks who use their brand/names/icons. This is no surprise to me.

 

[JWG]

I'll bite over the plastic Luxo replica. I refuse to bite on it being about the Luxo name. Disney has been allowed use of the name tied to a Luxo lamp character for 23 years (Pixar first). It isn't about using the name, or shouldn't be considering the long standing agreement.

BUT, I will agree that making a cheap plastic replica and stamping "Luxo" on it is degrading to the brand and I'd likely take the same action.

 

[bgraham34]

I'll bite over the plastic Luxo replica. I refuse to bite on it being about the Luxo name. Disney has been allowed use of the name tied to a Luxo lamp character for 23 years (Pixar first). It isn't about using the name, or shouldn't be considering the long standing agreement.

BUT, I will agree that making a cheap plastic replica and stamping "Luxo" on it is degrading to the brand and I'd likely take the same action.

I agree with you and with Luxo.

 

[RAXIP]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but the sign next to Luxo used to read "Luxo Lighting Co." now just says "Lighting".

 

[Cindy'sBruno]

Why does stitch have to be brought up in nearly every thread. For me, when I start to read a thread and on the first or second page you see someone bashing stitch for no good reason, I stop reading the thread! Surely people can find something better to talk about other than that.

 

[unkadug]

Why does stitch have to be brought up in nearly every thread. For me, when I start to read a thread and on the first or second page you see someone bashing stitch for no good reason, I stop reading the thread! Surely people can find something better to talk about other than that.

It's a joke. And if you stop reading because of one person's Stitch comment, then you will miss out on a lot of good threads. :shrug:

 

[trr1]

I'll bite over the plastic Luxo replica. I refuse to bite on it being about the Luxo name. Disney has been allowed use of the name tied to a Luxo lamp character for 23 years (Pixar first). It isn't about using the name, or shouldn't be considering the long standing agreement.

BUT, I will agree that making a cheap plastic replica and stamping "Luxo" on it is degrading to the brand and I'd likely take the same action.

they should have just put pixar on the base

 

[Cindy'sBruno]

It's a joke. And if you stop reading because of one person's Stitch comment, then you will miss out on a lot of good threads. :shrug:

I know. lol.:lol: It just gets alittle agrivating...you know. I just wish I could delete a few of them. hahahahaha