Fleischer Studios Inc. v. A. v. E.L.A. Inc.
| Citation | 654 F.3d 958,99 U.S.P.Q.2d 1654,2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12627,11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10650 |
| Decision Date | 19 August 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 09–56317.,09–56317. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
| Parties | FLEISCHER STUDIOS, INC., Plaintiff–Appellant,v.A.V.E.L.A., INC., DBA Art & Vintage Entertainment Licensing Agency; Art–Nostalgia.com, Inc; X One X Movie Archive, Inc; Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co.; Leo Valencia, Defendants–Appellees. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert P. LoBue (argued), Gloria C. Phares, A. Leah Vickers of Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP, New York, NY, and Rex S. Heinke of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for appellant Fleischer Studios, Inc.Douglas D. Winter (argued) of The Ball Law Firm, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, David A. Gerber, D. Gerber Law Offices, Oxnard, CA, for appellees A.V.E.L.A., INC., DBA Art & Vintage Entertainment Licensing Agency; et al.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Florence–Marie Cooper, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:06–cv–06229–FMC–MAN.Before: J. CLIFFORD WALLACE and SUSAN P. GRABER, Circuit Judges, and RICHARD MILLS, Senior District Judge.*
The Opinion filed February 23, 2011, and published at 636 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir.2011), is hereby withdrawn and superceded by the Opinion filed concurrently herewith.
With the filing of the new opinion, Appellant's pending petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED as moot, without prejudice to refiling a subsequent petition for rehearing and/or rehearing en banc. See 9th Cir. G.O. 5.3(a).
OPINIONThis appeal stems from the district court's summary judgment dismissing Fleischer Studios, Inc.'s (Fleischer) copyright and trademark infringement action. The district court ruled that Fleischer held neither a valid copyright nor a valid trademark in the Betty Boop cartoon character and thus lacked standing to sue. Fleischer appeals. The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
Betty Boop “combined in appearance the childish with the sophisticated—a large round baby face with big eyes and a nose like a button, framed in a somewhat careful coiffure, with a very small body.” Fleischer Studios v. Ralph A. Freundlich, Inc., 5 F.Supp. 808, 809 (S.D.N.Y.1934). Betty Boop was the creation of Max Fleischer, then head of Fleischer Studios, Inc. (Original Fleischer). Beginning in 1930, Original Fleischer developed a number of cartoon films featuring Betty Boop. For a time, Original Fleischer licensed the Betty Boop image for use in toys, dolls, and other merchandise. Approximately ten years after creating her, Original Fleischer abandoned Betty Boop and sold its rights to both her cartoons and her character. Soon after, in 1946, Original Fleischer was dissolved.
Max Fleischer's family attempted to revive the Fleischer cartoon business in the early 1970s. The family incorporated its new entity under the same name as Original Fleischer and attempted to repurchase the intellectual property rights to the Betty Boop character. To be clear, Fleischer, the plaintiff in this action, is a distinct and separate entity from the now defunct Original Fleischer which first owned Betty Boop.
Fleischer believes that its intellectual-property-rights purchases have made it the exclusive owner of the Betty Boop character copyright and trademark. Based on this belief, Fleischer licenses the Betty Boop character for use in toys, dolls, and other merchandise. This merchandise has reached such a high level of popularity that even drug dealers have been known to use it. See United States v. Lakoskey, 462 F.3d 965, 971 (8th Cir.2006) ( ).
The defendants in this action, A.V.E.L.A., Inc., Art–Nostalgia.com, Inc., X One X Movie Archive, Inc., and Leo Valencia (collectively, A.V.E.L.A.), also license Betty Boop merchandise. The copyright pursuant to which A.V.E.L.A. licenses its products is based on vintage posters featuring Betty Boop's image that A.V.E.L.A. has restored.
During summary judgment proceedings before the district court, the parties disputed whether Fleischer owned an exclusive copyright to the Betty Boop character. Fleischer asserted that its ownership of the copyright, which was first owned by Original Fleischer, arises through several alternative chains of title. Only one chain is relevant here, however, because Fleischer has abandoned the others on appeal. The purported title chain is as follows: Original Fleischer transferred its rights to Paramount Pictures, Inc. (Paramount) in 1941; Paramount transferred those rights to UM & M TV Corp. (UM & M) in 1955; in 1958, UM & M transferred these rights to National Telefilm Associates, Inc. (NTA), which became Republic Pictures in 1986; and finally, Republic Pictures transferred the exclusive copyright to Fleischer in 1997.
A.V.E.L.A. disputed this alleged chain of title, arguing that there was no admissible evidence to establish each link in the chain with the exception of the transfer from Original Fleischer to Paramount. The district court agreed and held that Fleischer failed to satisfy its burden of proof regarding the transfer of rights from UM & M to NTA and from NTA to Republic Pictures.
The district court also dismissed Fleischer's trademark infringement claim, holding that Fleischer failed to submit proper evidence of a registered federal trademark in the Betty Boop image, and, although it had evidence of a registered federal trademark in the name “Betty Boop,” the fractured ownership and use of that mark destroyed Fleischer's trademark rights. The court further held that Fleischer did not establish that it owned common-law trademarks in Betty Boop's name or image.
There is no doubt that a separate Betty Boop character copyright exists. Although there is no evidence in the record that Original Fleischer filed a copyright registration for the Betty Boop character, that is of no moment. Because all of the copied works were created before 1978, both parties agree that the Copyright Act of 1909 (1909 Act) applies to the copyrights at issue in this litigation. See Self–Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self–Realization, 206 F.3d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir.2000). Under section 3 of the 1909 Act:
The copyright provided by this title shall protect all the copyrightable component parts of the work copyrighted, and all matter therein in which copyright is already subsisting, but without extending the duration or scope of such copyright. The copyright upon composite works or periodicals shall give to the proprietor thereof all the rights in respect thereto which he would have if each part were individually copyrighted under this title.
17 U.S.C. § 3 (repealed) (emphasis added); see also Rice v. Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1175–76 (9th Cir.2003) ().
The parties agree that Betty Boop became a separate copyrightable component of one of Original Fleischer's 1930 films, and we accept that concession for the purposes of this appeal. Shivers v. Amerco, 670 F.2d 826, 832 n. 3 (9th Cir.1982); see also Rice, 330 F.3d at 1175–76. The logical result of this concession is that Original Fleischer owned “all the rights in respect [to Betty Boop] which [it] would have if” it had individually copyrighted it.1 17 U.S.C. § 3; Kaplan v. Fox Film Corp., 19 F.Supp. 780, 781 (S.D.N.Y.1937).
Fleischer now appeals, objecting to both the district court's copyright and trademark rulings. We review the district court's summary judgment de novo. Ellison v. Robertson, 357 F.3d 1072, 1075 (9th Cir.2004).
Fleischer bears the burden of proving copyright ownership. Litchfield v. Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1355 (9th Cir.1984) (). As mentioned earlier, Fleischer asserts ownership of a copyright in the Betty Boop character through the following chain of title: Original Fleischer to Paramount to UM & M to NTA to Republic Pictures to Fleischer. Because this complete chain is necessary to establish ownership, Fleischer's copyright action requires it to establish each link.
It is undisputed that in 1941 Paramount obtained from Original Fleischer the rights to both the Betty Boop character and numerous Betty Boop cartoons. What is disputed, however, is whether Paramount then transferred the Betty Boop character to UM & M. Fleischer argues that it did so by a 1955 purchase agreement that stated, in part:
Paramount hereby grants and assigns to [UM & M] all of Paramount's right, title and interest in and to said Photoplays [of Betty Boop] which are deliverable by Paramount to [UM & M] hereunder and do not revert to Paramount under Paragraph 11 hereof, hereinafter for convenience referred to as “Sold Photoplays”, any copyrights subsisting therein, the literary material upon which they are based and the instruments whereby Paramount acquired its right, title and interest in and to such literary material....
However, a key provision in that same agreement carved out the transfer of the characters in those Sold Photoplays:
Anything to the contrary notwithstanding, no grant or assignment is made hereunder to [UM & M] of the characters and characterizations contained in said Sold Photoplays or said literary material, or of the copyrights in said characters or characterizations, or of any production or other rights in said characters and characterizations, or to use said characters and characterizations or the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carl Follo, Follo Hospitality, Inc. v. Morency
...this Court reluctant to take judicial notice of facts available but not produced at trial, see, e.g., Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir.2011) (“a plaintiff may not cure her failure to present the trial court with facts sufficient to establish the validi......
-
Carl Follo, Follo Hospitality, Inc. v. Morency (In re Morency)
...under either §523(a)(2)(B) without the additional evidence of the jury instructions. Citing, inter alia, Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958, 966 (9th Cir. 2011) ("[A] plaintiff may not cure her failure to present the trial court with facts sufficient to establish the ......
-
Clancy v. Jack Ryan Enters., Ltd.
...entitled to somewhat limited copyright protection; however, far greater protection has been afforded cartoon characters."), aff'd, 654 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2011); Ideal Toy Corp. v. Kenner Prods. Div. of General Mills Fun Group, Inc., 443 F. Supp. 291, 301 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) (finding that the ch......
-
UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Grp., Inc.
...at 641;see also Capitol Records, Inc. v. Naxos of Am., 4 N.Y.3d at 558, 797 N.Y.S.2d 352, 830 N.E.2d 250;Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958, 964 (9th Cir.2011). Also, the term “infringing,” found in 17 USC § 512(c)(3)(A)(iii), is no less applicable to common-law copyr......
-
Connect 4: Trade Dress Infringement and Secondary Meaning
...would associate its trade dress specifically with P&P, relying on a 2011 Ninth Circuit case, Fleischer Studios, Inc. v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958. P&P appealed the summary judgment ruling to the Ninth Circuit. (This article will not address the issue of attorney’s fees, that was also t......
-
Federal Law of Unfair Competition
...1188 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing Welding Servs. v. Forman, 509 F.3d 1351, 1358 (11th Cir. 2007)); Fleischer Studios v. A.V.E.L.A., Inc., 654 F.3d 958, 967 (9th Cir. 2011); see also RESTATEMENT (THIRD), supra note 2, § 13(b). The Commissioner of the United States Patent and Trademark Office “ma......