The appeals court agreed.īecause all the works at issue had been created before 1978, the 1909 Copyright Act applied in this case. It also held that the plaintiff had not established sufficient evidence of a registered trademark. ![]() At trial the court sided with A.V.E.L.A, holding that the Fleischer had not established a good chain of title in the copyright. This lawsuit arose between the new Fleischer corporation and another company that has also been licensing Betty Boop merchandise. Fleischer’s family formed a new corporation and tried to re-purchase the rights in the 1970s, and, since then, Betty Boop’s popularity has risen again. ![]() Rights were subsequently sold and re-sold, and the chain of title had become rather confused. Fleischer sold both the rights to the cartoon and to the character in 1946. In the 1930s Max Fleischer and Fleischer studios issued cartoons featuring the Betty Boop character and also licensed merchandise with the Betty Boop image. It has several interesting features, including the use of older copyright law, the concept of copyright in characters, and the interaction of copyright and trademark. 009-56317 (February 23, 2011)) was about copyright and trademark claims in the Betty Boop character. Because of a case from the Ninth Circuit this week, now I wish I had kept the original box and could tell what company manufactured it. One of the ornaments that grace our living room coffee table is a small lamp that features Betty Boop playing the ukulele underneath a palm tree.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |