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

[Richard Hartman <hartman(at)onetouch.com>]

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?
> > 
>