Comments on: Pixar Sued Over a Light Fixture

By: DT

DT — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 18:31:52 +0000

Thanks for the compliment. I am a law student, and no expert at intellectual property, but it still boggles my mind how someone at such a big company could have thought this was a good idea. I wonder what kind of effect a lawsuit like this will have on Disney. Also, I like your site. Keep commenting and let other people know about entertainmentagentblog.com

By: Ryan

Ryan — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 15:41:34 +0000

I agree. I cannot believe that someone in the legal department of Disney OK'd the name Luxo, Jr. How could that not be confusing? Clearly someone at Disney needs to go read the Lanham Act or take an intellectual property course.

By: David Greene

David Greene — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 15:36:35 +0000

I think the biggest problem here is that Disney called the product "Luxo Jr." One of the policies of the Lanham Act is to prevent confusion as to source of goods and services. By naming the product "Luxo Jr" Disney is likely to confuse consumers into believing that the source of the toy is also the source of the lamp. Thus, the senior user of the mark – Luxo (the lamp company) – has a cause of action against Disney.

Disney would have been wise to change the name, especially if they now want to literally compete with the Luxo Company for lamp sales. As far as the Luxo Company is concerned, whenever Disney sells one of these toys, Luxo loses a sale; this is unacceptable from a trademark perspective if both companies use confusingly similar names.

Very interesting article.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 01:52:06 +0000

By: Gordon Firemark

Gordon Firemark — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:36:15 +0000

Good post. Tamera Bennett and I covered this story in our most recent, episode 5 of Entertainment Law Update Podcast. Clearly someone at Disney/Pixar screwed up in going forward with the product.