Disney sues couple for one million dollars for wearing Winnie the Pooh costumes.

[Gemini Cricket]

Hmmm.
I can see both sides of the argument on this one. But who doesn't know that they shouldn't use someone else's copyright protected material to make money? It's common knowledge.
I'm usually not one to defend big heartless corporations, but the family claiming ignorance about something so basic is a big red flag for me. Hmmm.

"The Walt Disney Company vs. Kool Klown Party People Inc" - I wonder if the bailiff will be able to read that aloud to the courtroom without cracking a smile.

[hollywood1939]

Which is why I have a feeling there's some aspect of this story were not hearing. Generally, they have to get 'flagged' somehow (for Disney to notice). There was something they were doing (besides showing off the bootleg costumes), that was getting the flag from Disney. Otherwise, Disney would just send a C&D letter, and not go this far (as they have with other money making companies in the past).

Maybe they sent a picture back to Disney with them mooning the camera with said Disney costumes on.

Maybe they were advertising as Disney affiliated?

[kimbaloo05]

Well, they are using Disney products for profit without their permission...

You are right Hollywood1939, but they need to crack down on everyone, even the sellers of their costumes. I can see where why Disney is suing, especially when it comes to making profit on Disney's characters. But my thing is, if you want Disney characters to come to a birthday party, does Disney have the opportunity for those that want to pay? If they don't then that probably why people are selling the constumes. Maybe Disney should look into that.

[Soulquarian]

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.

What's your point? Instead of being out $1400 they're going to be out quite a bit more for not being complient. They were also still somewhat advertising their services online.

Once again, no sympathy for thieves.

[geoffa]

It's like the company I work for - London Underground. They are protective of the "roundel" - the Underground logo. Thay even sued a cafe in San Francisco for using it. The whole point of copyrights and trade marks is to prevent such infringements. The couple should have realised they'd never get away with this. Whilst the £1 million seems a bit excessive, it's Disneys way ofscaring off others from trying similar tactics. And, yes, they should be going after the Peruvian comapny too.

[Phonedave]

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.

If you go into a store and try to use a counterfit bill (by accident, you got it somewhere else) and they spot it, they take it, and you are out your $20 or whatever amount. I have had to do this a number of times, and it's not a fun thing to do, but you can't just give the counterfit bill back to the person.

It's the same thing here. There is a counterfit out there, it was spotted, and should be confiscated and destroyed, not put back in circulation. In this case its even worse than the case of a person unknowingly having a counterfit 20$. In this case the people KNEW they were receiving counterfit products, and did so because it was a discount.

It's as if I made counterfit $20's and sold them to you for $10. You went to use them in a store, got caught, and said "well give them back to me, I am going to go get my money back from the guy I bought them from"

-dave

[sediment]

Meh. The million dollars is just to intimidate OTHER people out there making money off of Disney licensed characters to stop.
This case will be settled out of court for an unnamed amount ($0).

[Retrocool]

It's like the company I work for - London Underground.

I thought that was a political movement.

[geoffa]

I thought that was a political movement.

You could well be right my friend!

The fact is that I've seen Disney costumes (or poor imitations of them) in many a fancy dress hire shop over here in the U K and I don't mean the licensed stuff you can buy. I've seen Universal characters too. It's a case of if think they can get away with then they'll try. They got caught - pure and simple - and now they have to face up to the fact that the mouse has teeth!

[jane2073]

I have seen costumes like that in our town!
Not the greatest quality or exact likeness but you can tell who they are supposed to be.

This is nothing new. I am really curious as to why this family was singled out.

[tahoebob54]

I am really curious as to why this family was singled out.

Its not they were singled out, its that they were caught.

Years ago I was driving down the street and saw that a local store was using Mickey Mouse in there advertising on there windows, It just did not sit right with me so I made one quick telephone call to Disney Legal Dept and told them what I had seen. the next day there display was gone from the window!

[Goofy Daddy]

Not that i usually am on the side of a huge multi-billion dollar entertainment empire when they go after "the little folks" really...dumb mistake number one was buying using the costumes when they just had to know it was a copyright issue. They gambled that such a big corperate entity wouldn't notice and/or not bother with it if they did notice and that gamble didn't pay off. Dumb mistake number two was after being told what steps to take to prevent legal action, they did not follow every one of them. I doubt Disney will ever get anything close to a million bucks from these folks, but in this case the small business owners broke their honey pot with bad choices and so now they have to deal with the mess.

[duanesm]

After watching the news story, it seems pretty clear that the couple did not follow through on what Disney asked them to do, in spite of continued communications from the company on the steps they needed to do to avoid getting sued.

I'm sorry, but I am on the side of Disney here. Granted, the company that produced the costumes should be sued, as should whomever sold them on ebay. But copyright infringement is against the law.

Disney will settle and they will probably not have to pay anything--but I hope it scared the crap out of them and a bunch of other people to stop breaking the law.

And yes, I'm one of those people who turns these sort of people in.

[OogieBoogie]

It might be harder to sue them since they are in Peru.

[Morrigoon]

I think Disney would have settled for the "penalty" of confiscating the costumes, and letting the couple be out the money they spent on them. Instead... well, when all else fails, cry on camera.