Fasa Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc.

Decision Date22 January 1996
Docket NumberNo. 93 C 2445.,93 C 2445.
Citation912 F. Supp. 1124
PartiesFASA CORPORATION and Virtual World Entertainment, Plaintiffs, v. PLAYMATES TOYS, INC., Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Karen B. Ksander and Catherine Van Horn, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs.

Mark V.B. Partridge, Brett A. August and Maxine Lans Retsky, Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, Chicago, IL, Jack D. Samuels and Donald L. Samuels, Samuels & Samuels, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant.

                                                TABLE OF CONTENTS
                  I. FINDINGS OF FACT — Phase Two Of Trial ...................................... 1131
                     A. Development of BATTLETECH Universe ........................................ 1131
                     B. Development of Virtual Reality ............................................ 1134
                     C. Sales Of The BATTLETECH Property .......................................... 1140
                     D. Recognition of BATTLETECH Among the Relevant Consumers .................... 1141
                     E. Originality and Distinctiveness of the BATTLETECH Property ................ 1141
                     F. Copyright Registrations ................................................... 1142
                 II. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Phase Two ............................................... 1145
                     A. FASA Has Established Original Expressions Of Ideas That Are Protected
                        By The Copyright Act ...................................................... 1145
                     B. FASA Has Established That It Has Protectible Trade Dress Rights ........... 1148
                III. FINDINGS OF FACT — Phase Three of Trial ...................................... 1151
                     A. The Development Of The EXO-SQUAD Toy Line By Playmates .................... 1151
                     B. FASA's Efforts To License Its BATTLETECH Designs To Tyco .................. 1155
                     C. FASA's Alleged Confusion Evidence ......................................... 1155
                
                     D. Playmates' Survey Evidence Established A Lack of Any Trade Dress
                        Confusion ................................................................. 1156
                     E. Playmates' Heavy Attack E-Frame Prototype Is Not Substantially Similar
                        To FASA's Mad Cat Design .................................................. 1157
                     F. Playmates' Marsala Light Attack E-Frame Toy Is Not Substantially Similar
                        to FASA's Black Hawk Design ............................................... 1158
                     G. Playmates' Livanus Light Attack E-Frame Is Not Substantially Similar To
                        FASA's Black Hawk Design .................................................. 1158
                     H. Playmates' Livanus Light Attack E-Frame Is Not Substantially Similar To
                        FASA's Bushwacker Design .................................................. 1159
                     I. Playmates' General Shiva Light Attack E-Frame Is Not Substantially
                        Similar To The King Crab Design ........................................... 1159
                     J. Playmates' Alec DeLeon E-Frame Is Not Substantially Similar To FASA's
                        Koshi Design .............................................................. 1160
                     K. Playmates' Alec DeLeon E-Frame Is Not Substantially Similar To FASA's
                        Daishi Design ............................................................. 1161
                     L. Playmates' Maggie Weston Repair Light Attack E-Frame Is Not Substantially
                        Similar To FASA's Dasher Design ........................................... 1161
                     M. The Heavy Attack E-Frame Prototypes Of EXO-SQUAD Toys Were Independently
                        Created ................................................................... 1162
                     N. The Development Of EXO-SQUAD Toys Draws Inspiration From Third-Party
                        Designs And Designs And Properties Other Than BATTLETECH                    1163
                     O. Specific, Non-Trivial Design Features Distinguish EXO-SQUAD From
                        BATTLETECH ................................................................ 1166
                 IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW — Phase Three ............................................ 1167
                     A. FASA Failed To Establish By A Preponderance Of The Evidence That Its
                        Protectible Copyright Interests Were Copied By Playmates .................. 1167
                     B. FASA Failed To Establish By A Preponderance Of The Evidence That
                        There Is A Likelihood Of Confusion About The Source of EXO-SQUAD
                        Toys ...................................................................... 1171
                     C. Playmates' Inclusion Of A Picture Of Its Planned Heavy Attack E-Frame In
                        Its 1993 Toy Catalog Did Not Constitute Unfair Competition ................ 1173
                  V. CONCLUSION ................................................................... 1174
                
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

CASTILLO, District Judge.

Toys and games are usually welcome diversions to the serious problems that too often confront our daily lives. This case, however, involves a serious business dispute about games and toys. Plaintiffs FASA Corporation and Virtual World Entertainment (collectively "FASA") claim that defendant Playmates Toys, Inc. ("Playmates") violated FASA's copyright and trademark rights to a series of robot-like battlefield characters, which are used in a futuristic setting known as BATTLETECH, when Playmates introduced a series of futuristic robot-like toys known as EXO-SQUAD.

In a previous opinion, this Court addressed Playmates' motion for summary judgment and outlined many of the legal standards that the Court has applied in this bench trial. See FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 869 F.Supp. 1334 (N.D.Ill.1994) ("FASA I"). FASA I granted Playmates' motion for summary judgment as to Count II (common law unfair competition), Counts VII and VIII (anti-dilution) and Count IX (tortious interference) and denied the motion as to Count I (Lanham Act unfair competition), Counts III and IV (copyright infringement) and Counts V and VI (trademark infringement). These latter counts proceeded to trial and are addressed in this opinion. Prior to the commencement of trial, this Court, after receiving input from the parties, imposed time limitations for the trial of this case and divided the trial into four phases: Phase I dealt with a waiver issue; Phase II focused on the validity and identification of FASA's alleged copyright and trade dress rights; Phase III focused on all infringement and liability issues; and Phase IV was to focus on damages. See FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 892 F.Supp. 1061, 1070 (N.D.Ill.1995). ("FASA II"). FASA II, which was issued at the conclusion of Phase I, rejected Playmates' affirmative defense of waiver, which could have been dispositive of all of FASA's claims.

This opinion, which deals with Phases II and III of the trial, is the third opinion issued by the Court in this case ("FASA III"). In this opinion, the Court finds that FASA has established certain protectible copyright and trademark rights but has failed to prove any facts which establish liability on the part of Playmates. Therefore, Phase IV of the trial will not be necessary and judgment is hereby entered in favor of Playmates.

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, the Court hereby enters the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law regarding Phases II and III of the trial. The Findings of Fact are based upon consideration of the parties' uncontested facts, all the admissible evidence, as well as this Court's assessment of the credibility of the trial witnesses. To the extent, if any, that the Findings of Fact as stated may be deemed Conclusions of Law, they should be considered Conclusions of Law. Similarly, to the extent that matters expressed as Conclusions of Law may be deemed Findings of Fact, they should be considered Findings of Fact.

I. FINDINGS OF FACT — Phase Two Of Trial
A. Development of BATTLETECH Universe

1. FASA originally introduced BATTLETECH as a boxed board game entitled BATTLEDROIDS in 1984. The general idea of BATTLETECH involves a complex, war-strategy game involving a futuristic civil war where combatants are both humans and genetically bred humans and use large and medium scale robot-like tanks, as well as powered battlesuits, as their weapons.

2. The game was developed by FASA's founders, Jordan Weisman and Ross Babcock, after they attended the 1984 Annual Trade Show of the Hobby Industries of America which was held in Anaheim, California between January 31, 1984 and February 5, 1984. (Weisman Tr. 261-275; Babcock Dep.).1

3. While attending the trade show, Weisman and Babcock saw several Japanese robot model kits that were displayed for sale by Twentieth Century Imports ("TCI"). Weisman and Babcock discussed with TCI representatives the possibility of creating a board game using the model kits as game markers. (Weisman Tr. 268-70; Babcock Dep.). FASA obtained licenses from TCI to use several of the MECH designs.

4. Thereafter, FASA began to develop a fictional universe for the BATTLEDROIDS game. The game was set in the 31st century where the Star League, a once-flourishing empire consisting of five separate cosmic houses, has been devastated by over two hundred years of bitter civil war. Each house, encompassing hundreds of different interstellar worlds, seeks to control the galaxy, known as the Inner Sphere. The battlefields on these worlds are dominated by BATTLEMECHs (also called "MECHs"), massive robot-like tanks of various shapes and designs. (Weisman Tr. 278-91, 358, 396-98; Babcock Dep.).

5. FASA also developed rules for playing the game. BATTLEDROIDS was a new type of science-fiction game system that combined a traditional board game with a more contemporary role-playing game. Each player would control one or more MECH playing pieces on a terrain-specific game board consisting of six-sided grids. The player or gamemaster directed the movement, weaponry and targets of each MECH playing piece and recorded damage sustained to each MECH during battle in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Jcw Investments, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • October 30, 2003
    ...material that is similar is otherwise not original with the plaintiff, there is no infringement." See also FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 912 F.Supp. 1124, 1171 (N.D.Ill.1996). Defendant then the Jesus-Christ character depicted in Emile Zola's 1887 novel The Earth, and the "Pull My Fin......
  • Macias v. Lange
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
    • April 1, 2016
    ... ... inexpensive determination of every action." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 325, 327 (1986). Summary ... Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The moving party bears the ... ...
  • Theotokatos v. Sara Lee Personal Products
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • July 8, 1997
    ...requirement in an exact manner, it has been described as "modest," "minimal," and a "low threshold." See FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 912 F.Supp. 1124, 1147 (N.D.Ill.1996) (citing Durham Indus., Inc. v. Tomy Corp., 630 F.2d 905, 908-911 (2d Cir.1980)), vacated in part on other ground......
  • Peters v. Kanye West
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 3, 2011
    ...F.3d at 511–12 (citation omitted); see also Roulo v. Russ Berrie & Co., 886 F.2d 931, 939 (7th Cir.1989); FASA Corp. v. Playmates Toys, Inc., 912 F.Supp. 1124, 1147 (N.D.Ill.1996) (“Where, as here, the Court is comparing products that have both protectible and unprotectible elements, we mus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT