Potential Lawsuit Anyone?

imagineer boy

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
Wow, just wow. The similarities are almost exact. A racecar main character, a hippie van, Cheech Marin's car is almost exact... Good grief, Disney should really sue.
 
GenerationX

GenerationX

Well-Known Member
I used to work for a major manufacturing company. During management orientation, one of the company lawyers discussed trademark infringement. She said that if the packaging, logo, or name of a new product is so similar to an established product in the same industry such that a person could reasonably mistake the new product for the established product, it's likely trademark infringement.

When I look at the ad for The Little Cars, I could see where a person could reasonably assume this was the work of Disney-Pixar (either Cars itself or a straight-to-video sequel). They've probably not violated Disney-Pixar's copyright; they haven't stolen the story or the characters. However, the packaging is pretty suspect. Maybe one of our fellow posters who is an actual attorney could explain whether or not Disney has a case.
 
Victoria

Victoria

Not old, just vintage.
I think the part that gets me is that Amazon.com has the cajones to "group sell" this ripoff movie with the REAL movie merchandise. Nice work, idiots! :hammer:
 
C

clarksfan95

Member
I don't know....I don't see really any similarities between the two. The character designs are completely different and the story isn't even close to what Cars was.

Animated cars (trucks, etc.) have been in films and/or television commercials for a long time...I don't honestly know which company was the first to utilize them, but I do know that it was quite some time before Cars was released.

Also, remember that Disney only owns the copyright to the title "Cars" not the actual word cars. I think if any company should own that word, it's Ford.

I think you might be overreacting a bit...that's all...it's nothing major and definitely nothing that Disney could try to sue over.
 
SteveUK

SteveUK

Member
Why are we all assuming we know which one came first? I know the date is 2006, but it coud be a re-release. I have thought for a while that eventually Pixar would start to run out of ideas!!! (and no, please dont bother correcting, insulting or otherwise knocking this post. sadly I feel it is necessary to add irony warnings these days)
 
C

clarksfan95

Member
I would say that this is definitely newer than Cars (hard to tell though), but from the artwork, it looks as though it came from a lower end studio.

I look at it this way....consider all the movies that have or deal with penguins.....

Madagascar has em, Happy Feet has em (not released yet), Surfs Up has em (release - next summer), the Pebble and the Penguin (this is a don't ask, don't tell about movie - I recommend not seeing it...) had em....you really can't claim copyright infringement on something that is everywhere...and if the stories don't match and the character designs don't match - then there really isn't room to take someone to court.

Another good example is mice and rats....Cinderella had em, Secret of NIMH is all about them, Pixars upcoming Ratatoille is about them as well, Flushed Away is as well, but you won't see companies going after each other because they've decided to use rodents as the main characters.
 
T

typhoonguy

New Member
clarksfan95 said:
I would say that this is definitely newer than Cars (hard to tell though), but from the artwork, it looks as though it came from a lower end studio.

I look at it this way....consider all the movies that have or deal with penguins.....

Madagascar has em, Happy Feet has em (not released yet), Surfs Up has em (release - next summer), the Pebble and the Penguin (this is a don't ask, don't tell about movie - I recommend not seeing it...) had em....you really can't claim copyright infringement on something that is everywhere...and if the stories don't match and the character designs don't match - then there really isn't room to take someone to court.

Another good example is mice and rats....Cinderella had em, Secret of NIMH is all about them, Pixars upcoming Ratatoille is about them as well, Flushed Away is as well, but you won't see companies going after each other because they've decided to use rodents as the main characters.
Click to expand...
That's just it though... Did you notice the Hippie bus? Looks an aweful lot like philmore...
 
C

clarksfan95

Member
If you check he's actually a tow truck. VW buses are VW buses though. Pixar didn't just come up with that design...the hippie part is a stereotype that is portrayed of the people who use to own (or still own...) Volkswagen buses. I'm 30 and I've associated hippies with VW's since I was about 10 years old.

If anything, the tow truck / VW bus is closer to Tow Mater (sp?) than it is to Philmore. Disney and Pixar can't go after a company simply because they choose to use a VW bus in their cartoon.....Volkswagen created the VW bus and society created the stereotype of the people who drive them. No one company can lay claim to the stereotype and only Volkswagen can claim design for the VW bus.

Another stereotype for tow trucks is that the drivers are generally not office styled workers. Most of the tow truck drivers I've met actually are very reminiscent of Tow Mater. They talk with that "Just come down from the mountain" voice. I wouldn't be surprised if Jeff Foxworthy wasn't approached for the part...

On a side note, I found it amusing in Cars the Philmore actually was next door to the army jeep character. Soldiers and hippies didn't get along too well back in the day and it was actually Pixar using stereotypes of reality in their cartoon.

Like I said though, no room for a lawsuit on this...it would be a waste of Disneys time and money. I didn't hear anyone screaming lawsuit over the story about Tugger the army jeep (the thread is hiding here somewhere)...he's more reminiscent of the Cars character than the VW bus.
 
D

darthjohnny

Active Member
I know this may sound weird, but there probably is a reason Disney has not already sued.

Perhaps it might be too much of a hastle. Supposedly, this only a rumor mind you, "The Wild" was being worked on years ago, and then for one reason or another, they stopped for a little while. Then Dreamworks found out about Disney's film, so they rushed out the sub par, in my opinion, "Madagascar" flick. So why doesn't Disney sue? I don't know.

I just saw an ad in the brand new November 2006 edition of Disney Adventures magazine. It advertises a card role playing game called "Pirates." Maybe you've seen it. It is a special edition version of this game called "Davy Jones' Curse" and it has a picture of a game piece that is a Kraken-like squid sea monster attacking a ship. It is made by a company called Wizkids, which I don't believe is associated with Disney. Why doesn't Disney sue?

These companies, like this car movie we are talking about, must make their product just ever so different, so it is techinically their own and Disney can't sue. I know it's pretty lousy, but I guess that is just the way it is. :(
 
C

clarksfan95

Member
I don't know...I kinda liked Madagascar and then the X-Mas short with the Penguins was really nice as well. I thought it was far superior than the Wild, which from the previews never had me hooked.

Disney can't sue Dreamworks because.....they released second...not first and there is no way to prove who was working on what first.

As for the card game....I haven't seen the ad, or the picture...I'll try and find it online to take a look...but keep in mind that Disney didn't develop the concept of pirates or squids so there really isn't any room for lawsuits there either. A squid is a squid really....Kraken actually reminded me a lot of the squid/octopus thing from 20000 Leagues Under the Sea....and....if I remember correctly there was a squid-critter in Sinbad (the Dreamworks cartoon).

I think the whole Davy Jones storyline is already a developed concept with laid out guildelines as to how things go....don't hold me to this though...I'm not a avid fan of Pirates or their history. (Unless they come from Pittsburgh - woohoo....another losing season.)
 
M

majortom1981

Active Member
hmm

You sure that card game is not a disney liscenced game? Since it was in a disney magazine.

Just how the disney stores are not owned by disney anymore but still carry disney merchandise.



darthjohnny said:
I know this may sound weird, but there probably is a reason Disney has not already sued.

Perhaps it might be too much of a hastle. Supposedly, this only a rumor mind you, "The Wild" was being worked on years ago, and then for one reason or another, they stopped for a little while. Then Dreamworks found out about Disney's film, so they rushed out the sub par, in my opinion, "Madagascar" flick. So why doesn't Disney sue? I don't know.

I just saw an ad in the brand new November 2006 edition of Disney Adventures magazine. It advertises a card role playing game called "Pirates." Maybe you've seen it. It is a special edition version of this game called "Davy Jones' Curse" and it has a picture of a game piece that is a Kraken-like squid sea monster attacking a ship. It is made by a company called Wizkids, which I don't believe is associated with Disney. Why doesn't Disney sue?

These companies, like this car movie we are talking about, must make their product just ever so different, so it is techinically their own and Disney can't sue. I know it's pretty lousy, but I guess that is just the way it is. :(
Click to expand...
 
D

darthjohnny

Active Member
majortom1981 said:
You sure that card game is not a disney liscenced game? Since it was in a disney magazine.

Just how the disney stores are not owned by disney anymore but still carry disney merchandise.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure. It is by Wizkids. Even though it is a Disney magazine, it advertises other products not part of Disney, such as advertisements for Spongebob Nickelodeon Video games.
 
D

darthjohnny

Active Member
clarksfan95 said:
I don't know...I kinda liked Madagascar and then the X-Mas short with the Penguins was really nice as well. I thought it was far superior than the Wild, which from the previews never had me hooked.

Disney can't sue Dreamworks because.....they released second...not first and there is no way to prove who was working on what first.

As for the card game....I haven't seen the ad, or the picture...I'll try and find it online to take a look...but keep in mind that Disney didn't develop the concept of pirates or squids so there really isn't any room for lawsuits there either. A squid is a squid really....Kraken actually reminded me a lot of the squid/octopus thing from 20000 Leagues Under the Sea....and....if I remember correctly there was a squid-critter in Sinbad (the Dreamworks cartoon).


I think the whole Davy Jones storyline is already a developed concept with laid out guildelines as to how things go....don't hold me to this though...I'm not a avid fan of Pirates or their history. (Unless they come from Pittsburgh - woohoo....another losing season.)
Click to expand...

Well, it is convinient that they came out with this game at the same time as when they came out with the movie. And I believe Disney came up with the whole background story of Davy Jones, and it wasn't specifically old pirate lore.

If you think that Disney might not be able to sue for that, then they can't sue for this car movie.

Why doesn't Fox/Marvel Comics sue for NBC's new show Heros, it basically copies X-men with the whole young people with evolving powers. Or why doesn't Marvel sue Disney/Pixar for The Incredibles being similar to Fantastic Four, it is a movie about a family of four super heros with similar powers.

Like I said, this car movie must just be so different, it passes as their own.

Disney was not the first to come up with talking vehicles racing around, just like the Chevron cars, or even that Thomas the Tank train cartoon.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom