Russell sez, "This month, Disney filed sweeping trademark applications
with the Intellectual Property Office of New
Zealand. They cover works that Disney has adapted – Snow White, Peter Pan,
Pinocchio etc – but *did not create*. If the 'word marks' were to be granted
they would give Disney exclusive use of those works in this territory."
Disney's application to IPONZ for a trade mark on Alice in Wonderland. The specification of goods and services for which trade mark protection is sought is very lengthy: from furniture to food, clothing to CDs.
You may be astonished at the breadth of the application being lodged by a company that has done no more, in this case, than produce adaptations of classic works of children's literature. Ditto for Snow White, Peter Pan, Pinocchio and a list of characters from those works.
This is not trivial. It would be understandable for Disney to try and protect its interpretations of existing characters, but its application for so-called "word marks" implies something much more than that: it implies exclusive rights to use all those characters. There have been at least 14 English-language films based on Carlo Collodi's 1883 novel The Adventures of Pinocchio (which itself drew on classical sources), and many more in other languages. If Disney was to obtain such trade marks (which cover "motion picture films"), would it then become impossible to make – or at least market – another one without Disney's permission? Would it be a copyright lockout via the back door?
(Thanks, Russell!)
Update: Tony sez, "a "wordmark" does not protect the word itself,
but the word written in a specific way (font, color, small/capital
letters, etc.)."
Update 2: Mark sez, "a wordmark does indeed protect the word in the abstract, in any script or color. A fancy logo that is only protected in its distinctive form is usually referred to as a 'combined mark' (combining word and figurative elements). Whether Disney will prevail in getting a wordmark "Alice in Wonderland" for 'motion pictures' is another question – as the post points out, the application has not been granted yet. Arguably, Alice in Wonderland is descriptive for films – it describes the type of story told, not the source (producer) of the film."
