RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS

["Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>]

Yes that would satisfy Disney about Mickey Mouse. Now Warner Brothers has 
Bugs Bunny jumping through the Warner Brothers Trademark...so they can get 
Bugs Bunny protected as a trademark. Oh Corning uses the Pink Panther for 
their pink insulation foam...so Corning can trademark that too......That's 
a mightly slippery slope to try standing on...

Trademark, copyright, patent are mutually exclusive. Had Disney used 
Mickey as a trademark, then a trademark he would be. That he is a 
copyright icon that they wish to keep as a trademark doesn't make him a 
trademark. But Disney doesn't want to keep him just as  trademark. He's a 
valuable copyright - mickey dolls, cartoons, hats, clubs, pictures, 
costumes. Given Disney the special status via the "Act of Congress" isn't 
going satisfy them...and again..sets a bad precedence.




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
02/21/02 02:40 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS


Perversion it may be, and yet, it would cover the DisneyCo's 
concerns re. "The Mouse" without having to go to the even
greater perversion of infinite extension of copyright, which
is what they have to pursue right now.

Which then is the lesser of two evils?  Stretching trademark
protection over the image of a cartoon character who is very
strongly identified with the owning corporation, or playing 
the "copyright lasts as long as we say it lasts" game?

-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A Rolenz [mailto:Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org]
...
> 
> I don't believe so. They can have several trademarks and they 
> can change 
> over time. Had Disney used Mickey Mouse soley as a trademark, then it 
> might be a trademark but they have not. It would be a gross 
> perversion of 
> the law to extend trademark protection to something that was 
> copyright 
> protected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
> Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> 02/21/02 08:55 AM
> Please respond to dvd-discuss
> 
> 
>         To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" 
> <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
>         cc: 
>         Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Eldred v. Ashcroft 
> Accepted forReviewbySCOTUS
> 
> 
> I don't know.  Mickey Mouse on _anything_ pretty much
> identifies it as a Disney product to me.  He is perhaps
> not their _only_ identifying mark, but he certainly is
> _an_ identifying mark.  Is there a restriction that a
> company can have only one ?
> 
> -- 
> -Richard M. Hartman
> hartman@onetouch.com
> 
> 186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: microlenz@earthlink.net [mailto:microlenz@earthlink.net]
> ...
> > 
> > But Mickey Mouse ISN"T a trademark. Trademarks are not 
> decoratations 
> > but functional identifiers-to identify the good, the maker of 
> > the goods, or the 
> > seller, or the perveyor. Mickey doesn't do any of those 
> > things for Disney.
> > 
> > From:                          Richard Hartman 
> <hartman@onetouch.com>
> ...
> > 
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: John Zulauf [mailto:johnzu@ia.nsc.com]
> > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > Think of Disney -- all in a panic about losing the 
> > exclusive rights to
> > > > Mickey Mouse.  This tends to indicate that they fear they 
> > have nothing
> > > > of equal prestige with which to replace him.  Being given yet 
> > > > another 20
> > > > year reprieve, there is nothing to motivate Disney to create 
> > > > yet another
> > > > marquee character.  They can simply rest on there legally 
> > preserved
> > > > laurels. 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > I still don't see why they need copyright extension to protect
> > > Mickey Mouse.  Aren't trademark protections essentially unlimited?
> > > Can't they trademark both the phrase "Mickey Mouse" and the image?
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
>