Disney Sues FL Couple - Trademark Infringement

[GrumpyFan]

I will add this. Based on what little I know about this and if I were on the jury I would award in favor of Disney. However, the reward of a $Million+/- might be adjusted down significantly. I agree that there appears to be a clear case of taking/using others' property without permission. Which is against the law, and should be punished. However, I don't believe that the damages/penalty should be as high as what they're asking. At the most, I would slap a $50,000 penalty and require them to pay lawyers fees. Reason for such a small fine, is that I don't believe there was $Million worth of damages inflicted.

[Goofster]

Wow....two against one doesn't seem fair...but i'll manage....

here's what I'm saying....

disney has every right to pursue infringement suits.....
and....if this had a negative effect on their business....they have a responisbility to....

but this story...as presented.....has ZERO effect on disney....

these are locals.....who probably do mostly birthday parties.....

it's not as though there are in OIA pulling british tourists off the planes and convincing them not to buy a parkhopper....

And i'm not saying that it has anything to do with the SIZE of Disney......

what it has to do with is that Disney has been bullying and pushing it's way around Central Florida for years.....blocking "unfavorable" development (like a highspeed rail line that would...GHAST...conncet ALL parts of the orlando area)......forcing "favorable" development (SEE: Parkway, Osceola) on local government that doesn't quite know what to do with it......
They run the place.....if the natives get a little restless at times.....just smile and go count the hundreds of billions you've made....

so....i'm aware of the legal rights.....but the problem with disney is being illustrated on this thread beautifully....

they act as any american corporation would do....but they have a legion of fans who won't label them as being aggressive.....as they would any other corporation doing the same thing....

the defense rests....

Locked....we are a nation of laws, not a nation of "forget the law, and do what's best for me" (though that seems to be where this Country is going - but that's a topic for another day). Disney warned this family 3 times to comply with its very simple demands. The family ignored Disney, tried to get around their demands, and now that they're facing a lawsuit, are crying "poor me". Don't symphathize with them or buy into their 'let's blam big ole rich Disney.'

At the end of the day, they had three opportunities to do what was right, but instead chose to ignore Disney, manipulate the facts, and outright lie about using the costumes.

[Goofster]

I will add this. Based on what little I know about this and if I were on the jury I would award in favor of Disney. However, the reward of a $Million+/- might be adjusted down significantly. I agree that there appears to be a clear case of taking/using others' property without permission. Which is against the law, and should be punished. However, I don't believe that the damages/penalty should be as high as what they're asking. At the most, I would slap a $50,000 penalty and require them to pay lawyers fees. Reason for such a small fine, is that I don't believe there was $Million worth of damages inflicted.

Disney is asking for statutory damages, which has a minimum penalty of $500.00 and up to a maximum of $1 million if the infringment was willful. Primarly, the family has to account for their profits and use of the infringing costumes and Disney gets to recoup those profits and can get a multiple of those in damages. A million isn't likely, but a good lawyer always asks for the maximum for his client.

[big blue and hairy]

I will add this. Based on what little I know about this and if I were on the jury I would award in favor of Disney. However, the reward of a $Million+/- might be adjusted down significantly.

Oh, there's no doubt about that. Disney wants to let the world know that they won't stand still while someone rips off their copyrighted property.

[DizneyFreak2002]

I am looking at their website and I see something interesting... On the bottom of the page they have a Copyright mark and it says... All pictures and images C Kool Klown Party People... How can they copyright pictures that aren't theirs???

[GrumpyFan]

I am looking at their website and I see something interesting... On the bottom of the page they have a Copyright mark and it says... All pictures and images C Kool Klown Party People... How can they copyright pictures that aren't theirs???

Well, technically, the pictures are theirs. However, the character images that are represented in the picture are not.

[lockedoutlogic]

Locked....we are a nation of laws, not a nation of "forget the law, and do what's best for me" (though that seems to be where this Country is going - but that's a topic for another day). Disney warned this family 3 times to comply with its very simple demands. The family ignored Disney, tried to get around their demands, and now that they're facing a lawsuit, are crying "poor me". Don't symphathize with them or buy into their 'let's blam big ole rich Disney.'

At the end of the day, they had three opportunities to do what was right, but instead chose to ignore Disney, manipulate the facts, and outright lie about using the costumes.

i have yet to debate the legal standings of the claim.....

i'm simply saying that in everything there is a choice......usually there is a "right" choice...and a bunch of "grey area" choices....

Disney probably could've handled it differently....that's my suggestion....

i guess i wish things were handled "among gentlemen" a little bit more.....and therefore less could be handled by paralegals....

[big blue and hairy]

i guess i wish things were handled "among gentlemen" a little bit more.....and therefore less could be handled by paralegals....

Three written warnings seems pretty gentlemanly to me. Both sides have to be gentlemen.

[GrumpyFan]

i guess i wish things were handled "among gentlemen" a little bit more.....and therefore less could be handled by paralegals....

I think read somewhere that Disney tried that two or three times when they wrote them asking to stop using their images. When the couple persisted past the warnings, they forced Disney to call in the dogs.

[lockedoutlogic]

I think read somewhere that Disney tried that two or three times when they wrote them asking to stop using their images. When the couple persisted past the warnings, they forced Disney to call in the dogs.

yeah...but what will "the dogs" change? Disney's point is to say "don't mess with our gravytrain".....

yeah....who doesn't know that?...expecially in florida?

again....not saying the claim isn't valid....but it probably could have been handled with a little more discretion....

[big blue and hairy]

yeah...but what will "the dogs" change? Disney's point is to say "don't mess with our gravytrain".....

yeah....who doesn't know that?...expecially in florida?

Kind of the whole point everyone else is making. How could you be so stupid as to not know that you couldn't use Disney's characters? Then go on TV and tell everyone that you had no idea it was illegal. Well, don't you think after one, two or three letters they'd figure it out?

Disney is not going to expect a million dlooars from these people. What they are going to expect is for people not to mess with their legally copyriughted characters!

This was originally handled quietly. Go back and watch the video. It shows the three letters Disney sent them. They chose not to comply with Disney so Disney took the only logical next step.

Sorry, the defense needs to rest, it's got no muscle at all.

[MississippiDisneyFreak]

Although I think Disney has the right to protect their interests, not allowing the couple to send the suits back to get their money back is unreasonable.....they should demand the suits back from the manufacturer.

[GrumpyFan]

LockedOutLogic, perhaps you're right. Disney could and maybe should act with a little more discretion on this.

I read the full news items, which still seem a little slanted toward the couple, but that's somewhat expected. It would appear that there was only ONE letter, not THREE as rumored, I never saw, and never heard where there was more than one. And, the couple complied with all but 1 of the 7 demands of the letter. The one demand they failed to comply with is what Disney is going after. Disney wants the costumes handed over so they can destroy them. However, the couple is claiming they returned them to the vendor they bought them from so they could get their money back.

So, should Disney persue them on this? It does seem a bit heavy-handed considering all of the other demands were met. Which leaves me kind of on the fence. I might alter my decision from earlier, to still rule in favor of Disney but reduce the fine to $1000 and half the legal expenses. If they could produce hard evidence of the return of the costumes, I might even consider a lower fine.

[big blue and hairy]

LockedOutLogic
I read the full news items, which still seem a little slanted toward the couple, but that's somewhat expected. It would appear that there was only ONE letter, not THREE as rumored, I never saw, and never heard where there was more than one.

Go watch the news video linked on page 2 of this thread it reports and shows three letters from Disney.

I agree that Disney is not going to get a million from this couple, but they new full well after the first letter that they were in violation and claimed in the story that they didn't know. And like locked said, who in Florida, doesn't know you can't use Disney characters.

This is party company. If they didn't know something as basic as what characters to use, what else didn't they know?

They had their chance to make it right, they refused. Heck, they could have even asked Disney for help getting their money back.

[big blue and hairy]

Although I think Disney has the right to protect their interests, not allowing the couple to send the suits back to get their money back is unreasonable.....they should demand the suits back from the manufacturer.

Anyone who is running a party company and advertising characters better know the copyright laws. If you don't know...find out!! Ever heard of the internet, over which they ordered the costumes? They never should have bought them. At this point, why should Disney beleive they were sent back and why shoud Disney have to chase them down in Peru. Disney isn't the one who used someone elses copyrighted material for profit.

[Goofster]

LockedOutLogic, perhaps you're right. Disney could and maybe should act with a little more discretion on this.

I read the full news items, which still seem a little slanted toward the couple, but that's somewhat expected. It would appear that there was only ONE letter, not THREE as rumored, I never saw, and never heard where there was more than one. And, the couple complied with all but 1 of the 7 demands of the letter. The one demand they failed to comply with is what Disney is going after. Disney wants the costumes handed over so they can destroy them. However, the couple is claiming they returned them to the vendor they bought them from so they could get their money back.

So, should Disney persue them on this? It does seem a bit heavy-handed considering all of the other demands were met. Which leaves me kind of on the fence. I might alter my decision from earlier, to still rule in favor of Disney but reduce the fine to $1000 and half the legal expenses. If they could produce hard evidence of the return of the costumes, I might even consider a lower fine.

Grumpy, as a lawyer admitted to the Federal Bar, I have online access to all cases filed in the U.S. District Courts. I looked up Disney's complaint, along with the family's answer, and attached to the complaint are Disney's three written warnings and demands.

Notably, the family did not respond to Disney's attorney in the following ways - 1) they refused to tell Disney where they got the costumes, 2) they refused to tell Disney how often they used the costumes, and 3) they refused to immediately remove the images. Later on, after the third letter, the family finally responded in writing, denying they even had the costumes in the first place (despite the images on their website or their later story to the newsmedia that they purchased the costumes on ebay). Disney gave them adequate opportunity to comply. They refused. Disney followed through on its legal threat.

[big blue and hairy]

Notably, the family did not respond to Disney's attorney in the following ways - 1) they refused to tell Disney where they got the costumes, 2) they refused to tell Disney how often they used the costumes, and 3) they refused to immediately remove the images. Later on, after the third letter, the family finally responded in writing, denying they even had the costumes in the first place. Disney gave them adequate opportunity to comply. They refused. Disney followed through on its legal threat.

Then she had the audacity to cry on camera that Big Bad Disney is picking on her and she just doesn't understand why. What a load of horse hockey (thank you Col. Potter)

[GrumpyFan]

Notably, the family did not respond to Disney's attorney in the following ways - 1) they refused to tell Disney where they got the costumes, 2) they refused to tell Disney how often they used the costumes, and 3) they refused to immediately remove the images. Later on, after the third letter, the family finally responded in writing, denying they even had the costumes in the first place (despite the images on their website or their later story to the newsmedia that they purchased the costumes on ebay). Disney gave them adequate opportunity to comply. They refused. Disney followed through on its legal threat.

[sarcasm]
Wow, what a shock! I'm so surprised that the media left all of this out! Big Bad Disney picking on this poor little couple, they should be ashamed! [/sarcasm]

Seriously though, I'm not surprised. I would've expected a couple of warnings before the "Big Dogs" were called out and they turned it into a suit.

It is more than a little irritating though at how the news channels left these "tiny" details out of the story.

[lockedoutlogic]

Kind of the whole point everyone else is making. How could you be so stupid as to not know that you couldn't use Disney's characters? Then go on TV and tell everyone that you had no idea it was illegal. Well, don't you think after one, two or three letters they'd figure it out?

Disney is not going to expect a million dlooars from these people. What they are going to expect is for people not to mess with their legally copyriughted characters!

This was originally handled quietly. Go back and watch the video. It shows the three letters Disney sent them. They chose not to comply with Disney so Disney took the only logical next step.

Sorry, the defense needs to rest, it's got no muscle at all.

well...i agree that the defendants used the press a little in this one....once they got calls from the tv stations and the sentinel....i'm sure they figured they could use it for some advertising....as there is a large anti-disney segment of the population in the orlando area....

but no.....still not buying it......it never should have gotten to the point of a law suit.....

disney used to avoid bad publicity at all costs...this is bad publicity for them....

as the rest of the world.....you know....those that aren't on D-boards and don't travel there 4 times a year.....will look at disney as being petty.....

your love of all things disney is clouding your judgement as to how this would look to those that don't have a strong for/against opinion.....

hey....agree to disagree?

this will be gone by next week....i have no doubt....

[Polynesian Dweller]

disney used to avoid bad publicity at all costs...this is bad publicity for them....

Lets get this back to the points.

1. From everything we do know, this was handled via letters (3 by last count) first so Disney did handle this softly first and then followed a progression in response. So they did try discretion.

2. Its all about copyright protection and the facts is, under copyright law, you must actively protect your copyright. Failure to do so can effectively put your material into the public domain. When that happens you lose control of it and anyone can use it. Disney must defend its copyrights, it is compelled to do so by law. When the discrete methods didn't work (a couple of letters with no apparent response) Disney had no choice but to escalate their efforts.

3. It isn't about avoiding bad publicity. Disney appears to have tried to do so, its the couple going to the press that makes it public. But again, Disney had no option to pursue it and to get compliance with its copyrights.

4. Disney isn't stupid. I have no doubt that they don't expect to get that money. But, what they had to do, was to say to any other party who might infringe on their copyrights, that they will defend them strongly, That's the point of the monetary figures.

Only a person who infringes on a copyright is a culprit in this, a party that defends its copyright against a percieved infringement (Disney here) is doing the right thing.