Disney Sues Over Teddy Bears

[mkt]

From the WDE Daily Report and AP


Disney Sues Over Teddy Bears

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) -- The Walt Disney Co. has sued a Swedish importer for copyright infringement and requested the destruction of 25,000 teddy bears it says are illegal replicas of Winnie the Pooh. The stuffed bears, which were made in China, were intercepted by Swedish customs in April and wear the "hunny" loving bear's trademark red shirt, according to a lawsuit filed with the district court in Malmoe, 340 miles southwest of the Swedish capital, Stockholm. They also have the same eyes, ears and nose and project "the same attitude and facial expression as Winnie the Pooh," the lawsuit said. Disney sued the importer, Malmoe-based Harle-quin Trade, to prevent the bears from being sold in Sweden, but the issue could be solved outside of court if the importer agreed to destroy the bears, attorney Ann-Charlotte Soederlund said. "Destroying teddy bears might seem a bit silly. But what if it's a pirate copy and it's dangerous and some child dies? Then Disney will be blamed," she said. Harlequin Trade president Hans Brefelt declined to comment on the lawsuit, but said his company had a "mutual understanding" with Disney. According to the lawsuit, Harlequin Trade reached a set-tlement with Disney earlier this year after trying to import alleged replicas of two other characters in the be-loved children's' stories created by British author A. A. Milne in the 1920s — Piglet and Eeyore.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

So the production of teddy bears wearing red shirts which allegedly resemble a character Disney never created in the first place is grounds for litigation?

I'm sure Walt would be proud...

 

[craziebabie1]

They have done that before with the Ty company.

 

[goofyguy]

Originally posted by Wilt Dasney
So the production of teddy bears wearing red shirts which allegedly resemble a character Disney never created in the first place is grounds for litigation?

I'm sure Walt would be proud...

You say this sarcastically, but you're right ... I'm sure Walt would be proud. Whether or not Disney created the Pooh characters, they do own the licensing. And in his time, Walt initiated plenty of lawsuits to protect character licensing. In addition to the (very valid) concern about Disney being blamed for a defective product, there's also the fact that marketing character likenesses is very profitable. And while many complain about some of Disney's efforts to make money, as far as I'm concerned, the more money they make, the more they can spend building things for me to enjoy.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Originally posted by goofyguy


You say this sarcastically, but you're right ... I'm sure Walt would be proud. Whether or not Disney created the Pooh characters, they do own the licensing. And in his time, Walt initiated plenty of lawsuits to protect character licensing. In addition to the (very valid) concern about Disney being blamed for a defective product, there's also the fact that marketing character likenesses is very profitable.

Everything that follows is entirely my opinion, so:

If the production of the bears was clearly an attempt to replicate Pooh, then I'll relent and agree that Disney is on solid ground (and since the same company allegedly released rips of Piglet and Eeyore as well, this may be the case).

But regardless of this particular case, I still think Disney is too sue-happy these days. The murals at the daycare in Florida and the statue of Winnie-the-Pooh in the hometown of A.A. Milne are two examples of the company staying within their legal rights while crossing the line ethically (IMHO). There's a difference between ripping off a character for profit and using a likeness for aesthetic purposes. I'm not familiar with any examples of Walt initiating lawsuits, so I can only speculate, but I would think he'd recognize the difference.

Further, there's the matter of the clear hypocrisy the company has seemed to demonstrate on this front. While they're more than happy to go after a daycare for pictures of Mickey and Donald, they have yet to address the organizers of the Gay Day event for using unlicensed images of the same two characters holding hands in their literature. (I don't have any political agenda in mentioning this--I just think it's an example of a clear double standard.) Disney doesn't have any legal obligation to be consistent in how they choose to protect their licenses, but it seems to me that the company has made some poor ethical decisions here.

as far as I'm concerned, the more money they make, the more they can spend building things for me to enjoy.

I enjoy the products they put out, no doubt--but like sausage and politics, sometimes I'd just rather not know what goes into them.

 

[alee4eva]

I'm sure the main reason theyre doing it is to not lose money. But, it is nice they try to keep up the Disney name if some kid chokes on an eye or something.

 

[goofyguy]

Originally posted by Wilt Dasney


But regardless of this particular case, I still think Disney is too sue-happy these days. The murals at the daycare in Florida and the statue of Winnie-the-Pooh in the hometown of A.A. Milne are two examples of the company staying within their legal rights while crossing the line ethically (IMHO). There's a difference between ripping off a character for profit and using a likeness for aesthetic purposes. I'm not familiar with any examples of Walt initiating lawsuits, so I can only speculate, but I would think he'd recognize the difference.

Actually, I'll have to agree with you on this point. At times Disney has been rather zealous in pusuing lawsuits and does cross over that line between legal and moral right on occasion. My main comment was that THIS suit seems to be valid and is consistent with similiar actions taken during Walt's time.
<p>
I may be incorrect about Walt himself initiating suits, but I do recall reading about this in either his or Roy's biography. Mickey products, made by unlicened vendors were selling all over the world. The Disney's realized the huge sums of money that these companies were taking out of their pockets and began to crack down. Licensing Mickey was one of the things that kept Disney from going under in the early days. But you're right, I think Walt would understand the difference this and some of the examples you named.
<p>
It seems that when people get together in large groups, they lose the ability to think clearly. Obviously, large companies are no exception. Disney has made some stupid mistakes and will probably do so again. I didn't think they did in this instance, but others may disagree. That's what make the world interesting.