3 ms·

Lawyers aren't expected to know the law outside of their specialty, but a law firm that doesn't understand basic trademark law is probably not a firm you want t

Lawyers aren't expected to know the law outside of their specialty, but a law firm that doesn't understand basic trademark law is probably not a firm you want to trust with your legal matters, because it indicts a failure to perform even the most basic due diligence.

nomel 1y ago
To help understand your comment, are you a lawyer?
- gamblor956 1y ago
  Yes. If this was a case that Morgan and Morgan expected to win they would not have withdrawn the ad. That they did indicates that they don't even believe their own claims.
  - eYrKEC2 1y ago
    In law, isn't the process the punishment frequently? What if they're just expecting Disney to drain their coffers with frivolous legal work? Isn't that a reasonable response then?
    - freejazz 1y ago
      It prevents Disney from being able to file TRO or preliminary injunction preventing the commercial from being aired (and protected M&M from having to spend resources fighting that, which will do nothing to actually determine the overall outcome of the case). Skeptical that gamblor is an attorney, they certainly do not seem to know what they are talking about.
  - toast0 1y ago
    OTOH, making a bunch of noise about the case gets the ad and their product seen by a different demographic than paying for the ad to be placed wherever they would have. IMHO, this is an alternate marketing campaign, costs go to the courts instead of broadcasters. There's some public benefit if the case generates precedent, so that's nice that they want to spend their ad budget on this.
klustregrif 1y ago
Lego already tried this approach and it doesn’t work. You cannot use trademark law to extend expired patents or copyrights. The real ad here is them baiting Disney and running this fairly open and shut case. Of cause they can use public domain material in their commercial and Disney can’t prevent them.
- gamblor956 1y ago
  Copyright only applies to specific expressions. Mickey is still a trademark of the Disney corporation. You're right though. This is an open and shut case that Morgan and Morgan will lose. There's only several decades of case law on this...
  - freejazz 1y ago
    >Mickey is still a trademark of the Disney corporation. Mickey, yeah. But steamboat willie is covered by a copyright that has now since expired.
    - happyopossum 1y ago
      Steamboat Willie has been part of Disney animations trademark for at least a decade. It is literally the trademark animation used at the beginning of every Disney animation film.
      - kbelder 1y ago
        Deliberately so, because they knew it was leaving copyright protection. This was their strategy to keep it locked up.
      - freejazz 1y ago
        And? Trademark isn't copyright law. It doesn't operate the same way. You can indicate that something isn't being used as a mark to indicate source (all trademark protects) and therefore it isn't necessarily an infringement of someone's mark, the same way direct verbatim copying would most likely be. What's your point anyway? That copyright should be subsumed into trademark? Some others here are posting it, not that it makes any sense. Even funnier, they complain about the term limitations of copyright... but trademarks are indefinite. Oh here I go arguing about IP law on HN again...

nomel 1y ago

To help understand your comment, are you a lawyer?

gamblor956 1y ago
Yes. If this was a case that Morgan and Morgan expected to win they would not have withdrawn the ad. That they did indicates that they don't even believe their own claims.
- eYrKEC2 1y ago
  In law, isn't the process the punishment frequently? What if they're just expecting Disney to drain their coffers with frivolous legal work? Isn't that a reasonable response then?
  - freejazz 1y ago
    It prevents Disney from being able to file TRO or preliminary injunction preventing the commercial from being aired (and protected M&M from having to spend resources fighting that, which will do nothing to actually determine the overall outcome of the case). Skeptical that gamblor is an attorney, they certainly do not seem to know what they are talking about.
- toast0 1y ago
  OTOH, making a bunch of noise about the case gets the ad and their product seen by a different demographic than paying for the ad to be placed wherever they would have. IMHO, this is an alternate marketing campaign, costs go to the courts instead of broadcasters. There's some public benefit if the case generates precedent, so that's nice that they want to spend their ad budget on this.

klustregrif 1y ago

Lego already tried this approach and it doesn’t work. You cannot use trademark law to extend expired patents or copyrights. The real ad here is them baiting Disney and running this fairly open and shut case. Of cause they can use public domain material in their commercial and Disney can’t prevent them.

gamblor956 1y ago
Copyright only applies to specific expressions. Mickey is still a trademark of the Disney corporation. You're right though. This is an open and shut case that Morgan and Morgan will lose. There's only several decades of case law on this...
- freejazz 1y ago
  >Mickey is still a trademark of the Disney corporation. Mickey, yeah. But steamboat willie is covered by a copyright that has now since expired.
  - happyopossum 1y ago
    Steamboat Willie has been part of Disney animations trademark for at least a decade. It is literally the trademark animation used at the beginning of every Disney animation film.
    - kbelder 1y ago
      Deliberately so, because they knew it was leaving copyright protection. This was their strategy to keep it locked up.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      And? Trademark isn't copyright law. It doesn't operate the same way. You can indicate that something isn't being used as a mark to indicate source (all trademark protects) and therefore it isn't necessarily an infringement of someone's mark, the same way direct verbatim copying would most likely be. What's your point anyway? That copyright should be subsumed into trademark? Some others here are posting it, not that it makes any sense. Even funnier, they complain about the term limitations of copyright... but trademarks are indefinite. Oh here I go arguing about IP law on HN again...