Disney sues Lake County business over use of Pooh, other characters

[crazy4wdw]

Disney sues Lake County business over use of Pooh, other characters

Stephen Hudak | Sentinel Staff Writer
July 10, 2008
Step aside, Cruella De Vil.

A federal lawsuit filed by Disney Enterprises Inc. has cast a Clermont couple as villains who exploited the trademarked likenesses of Winnie the Pooh, Eeyore and Tigger, too, to enrich their family business, Kool Klown Party People Inc.

Maitland-based lawyers for Disney demanded in the million-dollar copyright-infringement suit that David Chaveco, 32, and Marisol Perez-Chaveco, 31, stop offering live entertainment services for children's parties that feature performers in "unauthorized reproductions" of character costumes.

The 2-year-old Lake County company offers custom-baked cakes, face painting, pinatas and inflatable "bounce" houses.

Perez-Chaveco, a work-from-home mother of two preschoolers, said she and her husband did not realize they were harming the film and resort giant when they paid $500 plus shipping for the adult-sized costumes of a "blue donkey" and an "orange tiger" from a Peruvian company on eBay.

The costumes were close matches to cartoon versions of droll Eeyore and bouncy Tigger.

"All of a sudden, I'm like some Cruella, the woman who steals puppies," Perez-Chaveco said, referring to the villainess in 101 Dalmatians.

"We're just trying our best to make ends meet and put food on our children's plates," she said.

The couple, who receive public assistance, filed a response in federal court in Orlando, contending they have complied with all of Disney's demands but one: They sent the knock-offs back to Peru for a refund.

"We needed the money," Perez-Chaveco said when asked why she didn't surrender the unlicensed costumes to Disney to destroy.

Disney officials in Florida declined to comment Wednesday, saying the lawsuit spoke for itself.

Disney's lawsuit contends it has the right to "combat willful and intentional infringement of its copyrighted properties" to prevent misuse of its characters. The company says it has, in the past, received complaints about unauthorized use of its characters.

Without firm licensing agreements, the company noted, it "cannot control the quality and nature of the performance, the quality of the costumes, [or] the quality and background of the individuals providing the performance . . . "

Disney has a history of vigorously protecting its copyrights, objecting to the unauthorized use of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy in murals at three South Florida preschools and challenging the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for using the company's Snow White character without permission during the 1989 Oscars.

In the lawsuit against the Clermont couple, Disney also is seeking attorney's fees.

 

[mitros]

Disney sues Lake County business over use of Pooh, other characters

You know, Disney really gets a little carried away with this stuff.....

 

[CanadianGuy]

You know, Disney really gets a little carried away with this stuff.....

Except at some point, failure to protect your trademarked and copyrighted materials within the time limits prescribed by the law ... is considered 'abandonment' by the courts.

And if you informally allow something ... without a written agreement, then you open the door to "why them and not me" when you do decide to sue someone.

Now, IANAL ... but Disney *could* have taken a different approach and offered a license to the preschool for some nominal fee ($1 a year plus the vague "other consideration") and put it in a written agreement. But by that point, the infringement had already occurred and the characters were as painted, mis-shapen etc.

Knox

 

[doconeill]

You know, Disney really gets a little carried away with this stuff.....

Actually, with trademark law Disney's hands are pretty tied. If they find out that someone is using a trademark without a license, then they MUST do something about it. If they fail to do so, they can actually LOSE the trademark. And Disney already had a long, drawn out case to affirm that they DID own the trademarks.

More than likely Disney simply told the lawyers to deal with it. Often the first notice is a cease-and-desist with a requirement to surrender all related items and profits, plus pay for attorney's fees, along with a lot of language that often gets interpreted that they could still sue you for more later.

The likely result is in this case that Disney will simply drop the matter with a promise from the couple that they don't do it again.

I see that the article specified copyright and not trademark, but its often confused.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

I don't blame Disney at ALL for doing this. In fact, I am glad they did. They need to protect their characters and how those characters are portrayed. The couple knew exactly what they were doing when they bought costumes with such starking similarities. They then got scared when Disney put the pressure on them and tried to renig on their mistakes.

 

[sjaakie]

Disney is very generous with giving permission to use the characters.

A family I know wanted a tombstone carved in the shape of Mickey for the grave of there little son and they got the permission from Disney without a problem.

 

[WDSearcher]

The part that bugs me about the story -- and this is SUCH a Sentinel thing -- is how they portray the couple. She's a work-at-home mother, they need the money to put food on their children's plates, they're on public assistance. Like Disney is out of line for pursing copyright / trademark issues because the family is such a wonderful hard-working couple. The couple are running a business, and it's up to them to know what they can and can't do as business owners.

PP's are correct ... Disney has to protect how its characters and images are used. I'll bet this couple would never pirate videos or steal someone else's party ideas in order to have entertainment at their kids parties. But no qualms about the costumes.

 

[Luv2Roam]

I don't blame them a bit either -- whether they go after them or anyone. How would anyone know what really goes on with costumes that depict their characters when they are outside of their control or knowledge? And you don't know where a video will show up.

 

[mitros]

They complied with Disney's requests, and they sent the costumes back for a refund. And Disney STILL wants to prosecute them? Let them go after the company that made the costumes. I'm sorry, I have less and less sympathy for Disney, being the way they have been handling everything lately. From understaffing the parks to the cutting back on menu selections. I could go on for 20 paragraphs.............

 

[doconeill]

Actually, the article specifically states that they did NOT comply with the request (they were to turn the costumes over, but instead sent them for a refund). It also does not say that Disney still wants to prosecute - the lawsuit is still in process. The next step would be for Disney to evaluate whether they complied sufficiently, and what the next step is.

Let me state it again...Disney is _required_ to defend its trademarks when it discovers that they are being infringed. To not do so can result in the trademark being nullified. There is nothing in the article that is inconsistent with this. The article simply chooses to paint Disney poorly as a big bully because of who was doing the infringing. They probably weren't even aware of the circumstances of the defendants (not that it really matters), but were simply suing a business.

It was also stated that the costumes came from Peru. Disney may or may not have trademark rights to the characters in Peru. If they do, I'm sure they are already working that angle. But that doesn't mean that the people who bought them aren't liable for using them for a business.

More than likely Disney will just say, "Good 'nuff," and be done with it. I'm not familiar that much with the Sentinel, but from what I've heard, you will probably never see a followup saying that.

 

[DisneyFanatic1072]

I agree also with Disney for protecting "their" own. No matter the situation or circumstance in which Disney's copyrights and trademarks are being infirnged upon, A company or a individual needs to protect what is theirs. I f we let one "Poor" couple use costumes then whose to say where it might lead to?? and besides i would think that the 500 or so dollars they spent on these costumes could have been used a little better. per say "TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE"???


Good for Disney, Nail every single one of these clowns you can find.

 

[KYMickey]

Disney is very generous with giving permission to use the characters.

A family I know wanted a tombstone carved in the shape of Mickey for the grave of there little son and they got the permission from Disney without a problem.

That's a very different situation because the character likeness was not being used to make money or as part of a business. In this case the couple was using the character likenesses for personal profit and something I'm sure Disney wouldn't endorse under any circumstance! They might possibly license to like this in for a profit but even then in this case I believe it would be doubtful.

 

[TDC Nala]

I saw photos of those costumes...I don't believe for a minute they weren't marketing themselves as Eeyore and Tigger. The costumes are practically indistinguishable. And from what I am hearing, this couple got multiple warnings to stop using the characters and didn't heed them until the suit was filed.

They can't use Disney's characters for profit without permission, no matter how much they say they need the money.

 

[sjaakie]

That's a very different situation because the character likeness was not being used to make money or as part of a business. In this case the couple was using the character likenesses for personal profit and something I'm sure Disney wouldn't endorse under any circumstance! They might possibly license to like this in for a profit but even then in this case I believe it would be doubtful.

Guess how many tombstone makers will make profit if this becomes regular business ??

Bacardi had a tombstone removed because there was no permission asked to use there logo.

 

[KYMickey]

Guess how many tombstone makers will make profit if this becomes regular business ??

Bacardi had a tombstone removed because there was no permission asked to use there logo.

The tombstone makers profit comes from making the stone, not the image itself and it was a special case with permission. If the tombstone maker wanna to market a stone like that I'm sure they'd have to license the image like everyone else!

I'm sure it's the same with Bacardi, if permission had been obtained or licensed before hand it wouldn't have been an issue.

 

[bytheblood]

Whydon't they go after the companies overseas that are blantantly using their characters without permission daily for their own non-Disney theme parks?

 

[doconeill]

Whydon't they go after the companies overseas that are blantantly using their characters without permission daily for their own non-Disney theme parks?

But they did. The knock-off park in China got slapped and had pulled the characters and tore down stuff that was based on them. I forget the name of the park, but I posted about it here a long time ago before Disney got wind of it and put it to an end...