Disney Sues FL Couple - Trademark Infringement

[Ed]

Disney takes Lake County business to federal court
Stephen Hudak
Sentinel Staff Writer

July 10, 2008

Step aside, Cruella De Vil.

A federal lawsuit filed by Disney Enterprises Inc. has cast a Clermont couple as villains who exploited the trademarked likenesses of Winnie the Pooh, Eeyore and Tigger, too, to enrich their family business, Kool Klown Party People Inc.

Maitland-based lawyers for Disney demanded in the million-dollar copyright-infringement suit that David Chaveco, 32, and Marisol Perez-Chaveco, 31, stop offering live entertainment services for children's parties that feature performers in "unauthorized reproductions" of character costumes.

The 2-year-old Lake County company offers custom-baked cakes, face painting, pinatas and inflatable "bounce" houses.

Perez-Chaveco, a work-from-home mother of two preschoolers, said she and her husband did not realize they were harming the film and resort giant when they paid $500 plus shipping for the adult-sized costumes of a "blue donkey" and an "orange tiger" from a Peruvian company on eBay.

The costumes were close matches to cartoon versions of droll Eeyore and bouncy Tigger.

"All of a sudden, I'm like some Cruella, the woman who steals puppies," Perez-Chaveco said, referring to the villainess in 101 Dalmatians.

"We're just trying our best to make ends meet and put food on our children's plates," she said.

The couple, who receive public assistance, filed a response in federal court in Orlando, 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.

Disney officials in Florida declined to comment Wednesday, saying the lawsuit spoke for itself.

Disney's lawsuit contends it has the right to "combat willful and intentional infringement of its copyrighted properties" to prevent misuse of its characters. The company says it has, in the past, received complaints about unauthorized use of its characters.

Without firm licensing agreements, the company noted, it "cannot control the quality and nature of the performance, the quality of the costumes, [or] the quality and background of the individuals providing the performance . . . "

Disney has a history of vigorously protecting its copyrights, objecting to the unauthorized use of Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck and Goofy in murals at three South Florida preschools and challenging the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for using the company's Snow White character without permission during the 1989 Oscars.

In the lawsuit against the Clermont couple, Disney also is seeking attorney's fees.

[Jasper]

It is amazing what lengths companies will go to in order to "protect" their properties! While I can't speak to what happened here, I do think though that there are times when all the companies, not just Disney, go to extremes.

[Zone Stop]

I'm not awake enough to put this eloquently, but Disney HAS to protect their copyrighted material, otherwise they would legally lose control of said material. Even in situations with day care centers and people on minimum wage.

Corporate America!

[TheRustyScupper]

1) Got no problem with suits to protect your interest.
2) WDW should have no problem with people suing them for plagiarism.

NOTE: Disney gets sued frequently for stealing ideas form others and using them for their own purposes. Yet, they get upset when they lose the suit. What's good for the goose . . .

[luvdiznee]

Good for Disney to protect itself.

[crazypoohbear]

seriously, this couple lived near disney and didn't realize that buying a "blue donkey and orange tiger" wouldn't have some resemblance to eeyore and tigger???
Playing the cynic here..... how did they come up with $500.00 to purchcase these costimes IF they are on public assistance??
I'm sorry but if you are on public assistance how do you come up with an extra 500.00 bucks??
I'm not on public assistance both DH and I work and like most of middle america we are living paycheck to paycheck without too many extras. Especially these days with gas/fuel/home heating.

Disney has to protect itself. what would stop people from distroying the image of the characters

[Ed]

seriously, this couple lived near disney and didn't realize that buying a "blue donkey and orange tiger" wouldn't have some resemblance to eeyore and tigger???

That was my thought exactly. They live within "spitting distance" of WDW. If they were using these costumes at kids' parties, etc., they had to be totally brain dead to assume that Disney would never find out. WDW has over 62,000 employees. Somewhere along the line, a WDW employee had to come across them at a party, through word of mouth, etc., and report it back to the company.

Like a lot of other situations, WDW needs to consistently enforce their trademark rights. If they let one person/company get away with it, they are allowing their rights to be gradually chipped away.

[Mickey91]

I'm not on public assistance both DH and I work and like most of middle america we are living paycheck to paycheck without too many extras. Especially these days with gas/fuel/home heating.

That's because you're not on public assistance. Honestly, we are right where you are. I am thrilled every time I have $20 left before payday. Our one big thing we scrimp and save for is our Disney trip. We have many bills, especially utilities these days, that we have a very hard time coming up with the money to pay. I'm not trying to glorify welfare but it gets old driving by houses where you know the family is on public assistance and seeing all this high dollar stuff in the yard and the big screen plasma in the living room window, knowing it will take years of working overtime and eating mac n cheese to afford even one of those items. I have no trouble believing the couple could afford the costumes. And, you know they were thinking of Eeyore and Tigger when they used them at children's parties. They should have to pay some restitution. I don't think a million$$ lawsuit is appropriate though. Honestly, it didn't do any harm to Disney. People all over America use fake, ugly costumes claiming them to be a Disney character. Even other theme parks have similar stuffed toys at their games etc. What else are they trying to make you think an orange bear in a red shirt is? Anyway, I hope this couple gets what they deserve, no more, no less.

[WDWHart]

That was so silly. I live in Illinois and I know you can't wear, paint, or speak anything that is Disney Without Permission. Maybe they should use the $500 to take a Business Management Class.

I will admit it is like David versus Galiath, but if it was them sueing Disney they would ask for Bazillions in retrun.

I agree it has to go both ways!

[DizneyFreak2002]

This family was warned two or three times by Disney to stop... They ignored the letters from Disney's lawyers... Do I feel bad for them?? Heck no... They received a fair amount of warning and continued to ignore them... Now they want to cry that Big Bad Disney is coming after a small little family??? They should have thought about that BEFORE infringing on Disney owned licenses and characters...

[Polynesian Dweller]

I'm not awake enough to put this eloquently, but Disney HAS to protect their copyrighted material, otherwise they would legally lose control of said material. Even in situations with day care centers and people on minimum wage.

That's actually pretty eloquent. Copyright law pretty much requires you to protect your rights once you have found out about infringement. If you don't as you say you lose control and it becomes public domain. Disney is all about the characters and has to protect its rights. If this couple infringed and got away with it you can bet that companies would start using them and Disney would lose control of part of its image.

[Scar]

This family was warned two or three times by Disney to stop... They ignored the letters from Disney's lawyers... Do I feel bad for them?? Heck no... They received a fair amount of warning and continued to ignore them...

If this is true, then I agree with you. But I read the article 3 times and I don't see that claim.

Of course Disney has every right to vigorously defend their trademarks, but if this family really is as poor as they claim, then Disney will never see a dime and they should probably just drop it after getting some sort of assurance that they will never do it again.

[big blue and hairy]

If this is true, then I agree with you. But I read the article 3 times and I don't see that claim.

Of course Disney has every right to vigorously defend their trademarks, but if this family really is as poor as they claim, then Disney will never see a dime and they should probably just drop it after getting some sort of assurance that they will never do it again.

I don't think Disney expects to win any money. They expect to send a message to them and anyone else infringing their copyrights.

[RBrooksC]

In this case, one has to remember, if you don't handle each case evenly, you get to the point where you have issues down the road. So, the attorney's for Disney or any other company for that matter has to pursue each case without prejudice at the beginning.

That doesn't mean as things progress exceptions can't be made but they should always be made after the fact.

[Marker]

The first thing that bothers me about this is the story itself. At least in my opinion it is written with a definite spin to make these people sound like the victim of the Disney Devil with mutiple quotes such as "We're just trying our best to make ends meet and put food on our children's plates," .

And then to read some of the responses, I hear what sounds ike sympathy for them, and more willingness to believe them than Disney.

You know, if someone walked into a store and walked out with something without paying, that would be stealing. How is this any different. If the accusations hold true, they used something that belonged to someone else, to make money. Doesn't matter if it's something that belonged to the guy next door or to a major corporation, stealing is stealing.

And why would Disney go after these folks so harshly, well why wouldn't they. Besides the fact of having their property stolen, thay have to protect themselves. Imagine if this psuedo-Tigger did something inappropriate, especially to a child. What do you suppose the news reports would say, "Tigger goes crazy at party and harms child", and suddenly Disney is being held to blame in the public's eye. And if Disney had prior knowledge and didn't say "NO", then they might be held legally to blame as well. With the giant target Disney is forced to wear on it's back, they have little choice but to protect themselves.

It bothers me that the public is so quick to listen to often unreliable information, and then make judgements based on not only that unreliable info, but also with a preconcieved notion that since there is a major corporation involved, they must be at fault.

My opinion, even if it is in the minority, let the court determine the REAL facts before any judgements are made. But that's just me.

[brownie]

I can't believe they wouldn't have know better living as close as they do to Disney World. Being on public assistance doesn't justify doing it either. I see no problem with Disney putting a stop to it. There are plenty of other costume set-ups the couple could have used instead of a Tigger and Eeyore knock-off. Of course, buying something like for your business through eBay probably wasn't the best first step to take.

[Goofster]

It amazes me how an individual will downplay the fact she is stealing someone else's property because she needs the money. Infringing on Disney's trademark, to make money, is stealing. It would be the same as if she broke into Disney's bank account and withdrew some cash. I'm sorry that her family is struggling, but it doesn't excuse her behavior.

And, I don't buy the fact that she didn't realize a blue donkey and an orange tiger from Peru were innocent purchases. They were marketing those costumes as Eeyore and Tigger - they knew what they were doing.

[Polynesian Dweller]

I don't think Disney expects to win any money. They expect to send a message to them and anyone else infringing their copyrights.

Absolutely! This is especially about anyone else who might think of infringing. This is all about a message to everyone who might infringe and not this couple specifically. They don't want money. They do want to be seen as willing to defend their copyright which copyright laws compel them to do.

[DonaldDuck1117]

I actually think Disney IS the bad guy here. They protected their copyrights, good for them, that is what they are allowed and supposed to do, I have no problems with that. In the article the couple said that they stopped using the costumes and SENT THEM BACK FOR A REFUND. This is the part that bugs me. Ok Disney, you got what you wanted, the costumes are gone, the couple won't be using them anymore. This couple is struggling to make ends meet and they needed that refund for the money. But the Mouse is still upset because they wanted the costumes to destroy, in which case the couple would be out $500. If that is the big deal here, (being able to destroy the costumes) I think Disney is suing the wrong people, might want to go after the company that makes the costumes. The couple has complied with Disney's wishes! They just wanted their $500 back. Give them a break Mouse.

[crazypoohbear]

I can see why Disney would want the illegal materials to destroy. What is going to stop the company from reselling it to another person? This is akin to the police confiscating illegal drugs or alcohol and then turning around and giving it back to the teens who purchased the alcohol so they can recoup their money??!!!
Come on, what lesson is to be learned.
These people knew they were buying product that they had no business purchasing. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't legally purchase knockoffs.
They should have given the ill gotten gains over to Disney and been done with it.
What's to stop them from getting credit from this company and turning around and purchasing batman or superman suits and doing the same thing over again with different infringement issues.

I actually think Disney IS the bad guy here. They protected their copyrights, good for them, that is what they are allowed and supposed to do, I have no problems with that. In the article the couple said that they stopped using the costumes and SENT THEM BACK FOR A REFUND. This is the part that bugs me. Ok Disney, you got what you wanted, the costumes are gone, the couple won't be using them anymore. This couple is struggling to make ends meet and they needed that refund for the money. But the Mouse is still upset because they wanted the costumes to destroy, in which case the couple would be out $500. If that is the big deal here, (being able to destroy the costumes) I think Disney is suing the wrong people, might want to go after the company that makes the costumes. The couple has complied with Disney's wishes! They just wanted their $500 back. Give them a break Mouse.