• Home
  • 1st Annual Symposium
  • About
  • Available Positions
  • Issues
    • Vol. 4 Issue 2
    • Vol. 4 Issue 1
    • Vol. 3 Issue 3
    • Vol. 3, Issue 2
    • Vol. 3, Issue 1
    • Vol. 2, Issue 3
    • Vol. 2, Issue 2
    • Vol. 2, Issue 1
    • Vol. 1, Issue 1
  • Staff
    • 2009-2010 Staff
    • 2010-2011 Staff
    • 2011-2012 Staff
    • 2012-2013 Staff
  • Submissions
  • Subscribe
Featured Article

A featured article from the current issue of the Intellectual Property Brief.

Daily Blog

A daily blog of IP-related news and issues

Articles

All of the Intellectual Property Brief’s published articles. All articles are hand-selected from outside submissions and from our very own IPB staff members.

Issues

PDF versions of each of the Intellectual Property Brief’s issues.

Short Circuit

Case-by-case summaries of intellectual property related opinions from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Home » Daily Blog, Featured, Trademark

Disney Gets Rights Over Winnie the Pooh Trademark

Submitted by Asha Velay on December 31, 2012 – 7:48 AM65162 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F12%2F31%2Fdisney-gets-rights-over-winnie-the-pooh-trademark%2FDisney+Gets+Rights+Over+Winnie+the+Pooh+Trademark+2012-12-31+12%3A48%3A51Asha+Velayhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6516

On Dec. 21, a federal appeals court upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision that allows Walt Disney Co. to maintain control of the trademark for the Winnie the Pooh franchise. This 2-1 ruling could possibly be the ending to an ongoing legal battle that has lasted decades.

Disney’s trademark ownership of Winnie the Pooh (and his Hundred Acre Wood entourage) was initially challenged by the family of Stephen Slesinger, a literary agent who first saw the marketing value in the characters. In the 1930’s, Winnie the Pooh’s creator, A.A. Milne, granted Slesinger exclusive merchandising rights to the characters. Slesigner and his family later assigned the rights to Walt Disney Co. in the 1960’s. In 1983, the Slesinger family agreed to take back and re-assign the rights to Walt Disney Co.  Following this transfer, there was a disagreement between the parties over the amount of rights retained by the Slesingers, which caused the family to take legal action in 1991, and eventually led to the recent appeals court decision. The Slesinger family contends it retained rights in Winnie the Pooh and is entitled to DVD, movie, ancillary content, and merchandising royalties. Disney, on the other hand, maintains Slesinger assigned all rights to Walt Disney Co. in the 1983 agreement.  The family has been back and forth with Disney in the courts and Patent and Trademark Office in an attempt to sort out the rights agreements.

Slesinger was a visionary of his time, and helped introduce the iconic franchise into American culture. After this decision, the Slesinger family does not have many legal options unless the case gets re-reviewed or taken to the Supreme Court. One might wonder if the Slesinger family retains any rights at all to the Winnie the Pooh empire. In the dissent, Judge Jimmie Reyna stated that a 2009 Central Court of California decision “appears to suggest that Slesinger retained some rights to the Pooh trademarks, but that any rights retained were insufficient to support an infringement action.” Meanwhile, Walt Disney Co. is rumored to be rebooting the Winnie the Pooh franchise.  This decision would certainly give Disney a greater incentive to do so, as the company won’t have to worry about sharing royalties with the Slesinger family.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare

About the Author:

Author: Asha Velay

Asha Elizabeth Velay is a 2L at Washington College of Law and a Senior Blogger for the IP Brief. She graduated from Georgetown University with a BA in Psychology. Prior to law school, Asha worked as a music publicist for an artist management agency based out of New York City. She is interested in Trademark, Copyright, Media and Communications Law.

Asha Velay has written 13 posts for the IPB.

65162 Commentshttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F2012%2F12%2F31%2Fdisney-gets-rights-over-winnie-the-pooh-trademark%2FDisney+Gets+Rights+Over+Winnie+the+Pooh+Trademark+2012-12-31+12%3A48%3A51Asha+Velayhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipbrief.net%2F%3Fp%3D6516 »

  • archos 9 pc tablet keyboard says:
    January 6, 2013 at 11:57 AM

    I’ve been surfing online more than 3 hours today, yet I never found any interesting article like yours. It is pretty worth enough for me. In my view, if all site owners and bloggers made good content as you did, the web will be a lot more useful than ever before.|
    I could not refrain from commenting. Well written!|
    I agree in part to this opinion, but maybe i need to think about it more

    Reply to this comment »
  • chase your dreams song says:
    April 28, 2013 at 6:08 PM

    If you desire to take much from this piece of writing then you have to
    apply these strategies to your won webpage.

    Reply to this comment »

Leave a comment!

Click here to cancel reply »

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Copyright »

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright

3D printing is the hot new topic in the tech world and with it come some possible issues related to safeguarding intellectual property. This two part post evaluates the possible issues that may arise due to 3D printing and why there isn’t any cause for alarm, yet.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Patents »

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business

Shortly after the oral arguments between Monsanto and Bowman, WCL hosted both parties for a post argument discussion. Recently the Supreme Court ruled on the case, requiring annual purchases of Monsanto’s soybeans.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Trademark »

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?

Following the explosions on April 15, “Boston Strong” emerged as a viral hashtag on Twitter, a rallying cry at public events, and a logo on all kinds of apparels. It does not take too long for business opportunists to take advantage of this national tragedy.

TwitterFacebookGoogle GmailGoogle ReaderDiggPrintBookmark/FavoritesShare
More articles »

Facebook

Accepting Submissions

The IP Brief is currently accepting submissions. We are looking for papers that address a legal topic relating to any area of intellectual property. Please submit completed papers and a cover page with the name and title of the article to ipbrief [at] wcl.american.edu. Any questions can also be sent to this e-mail address.

Blogroll

  • American University Washington College of Law
  • Carrollogos
  • Copyright Blog
  • GamePolitics
  • Intellectual Property Watch
  • PatentlyO
  • Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property
  • Spicy IP
  • The TTABlog®
  • ©ollectanea

Tags

Archives

  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • January 2010

Random Posts

Apple Denied Rights to “Multi-Touch” Ultramercial v. Hulu – Bilski Does Not Enter Cyberspace Short Circuit: November 18 - 24, 2012 David v. Goliath: Big British Publishing Houses Enforce Copyright Law against Small Copyshop at Delhi University. Defamed by Copyright Registration? A Federal Court Keeps CafePress on the Hook for Trademark Infringement, Rejecting Motion to Dismiss Novel Claims on Inventions' Novelty and Obviousness Bring Non-Obvious Developments to Patent Litigation A Threat to Breast Cancer Awareness United Kingdom Reviews Copyright Laws Removing the E-PARASITES No Teenage Dream: Katy Perry Tour Merchandiser Initiates Trademark Infringement Suit Seeing Red: NASA Hit with Bogus Copyright Claim over Mars Rover Video
(refresh random posts)

Latest Video Post

Relatively New Anti-Piracy PSA: Another Analogy Comparison of Piracy to Stealing Cars or an Effective Message?

Recent Posts

  • 3D Printing and Intellectual Property: Copyright
  • Can “Boston Strong” be Trademarked?
  • Bowman Decision a Win for Big Business
  • Supreme Sues Married to the Mob for $10 Million
  • Appropriating Sid Vicious

Twitter

  • No public Twitter messages.
  • Copy / Paste
  • Site Search
  • Wikipedia
  • Google
  • Facts
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Outlook
  • Gmail
  • Y! Mail
  • Twitter
  • Search & Share
Powered by WordPress | Log in | Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS) | Arthemia Premium theme by Colorlabs Project
The American University Intellectual Property Brief is licensed by the staff of the American University Intellectual Property Brief under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. IPBrief.net is hosted by Dan Rosenthal. For technical queries, contact dan@danrosenthal.org

Creative Commons License