
Disney sued for copyright infringement over Moana
On 10 January, animator Buck Woodall filed a lawsuit against Disney, claiming that the films Moana and Moana 2 were copied from his original script without his consent. This follows a court ruling in November 2023 that dismissed a previous lawsuit over the first film on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired. However, the new lawsuit focuses on the sequel, which was released in November 2024. According to Woodall, Jenny Marchick, former head of development at Mandeville Films and now a director at DreamWorks Animation, infringed his copyrights by secretly sharing copyrighted material he entrusted to her two decades ago with Disney.
The story dates back to between 2003 and 2008, when Woodall provided Marchick with materials from his project Bucky the Wave Warrior, including a full script, illustrations, budgets, an animated trailer, storyboards and visual references. The animator claims that these materials were never developed, but Marchick shared them with Disney. Furthermore, Woodall claims that he registered the materials related to his project with the US Copyright Office in 2004 and updated them in 2014.
The animator points out several similarities between his project, Bucky the Wave Warrior, and Disney's films. Regarding Moana (2016), he notes that both share a storyline of a teenager travelling through Polynesian waters in a canoe to save her homeland, with elements such as ancestral spirits appearing as animals, star-based navigation, and symbolic motifs such as a necklace, a lava goddess, and a living island. For Moana 2 (2024), he highlights similarities such as a mission to break a curse, a whirlpool that acts as an oceanic portal, and the inclusion of the Kakamora warrior tribe.
Buck Woodall is seeking damages of 2.5% of the gross revenues generated by the Moana franchise, which is estimated at $10 billion, as well as a court order upholding his copyright and prohibiting future infringements.
EU trade mark dispute: €$ We Think for You
On 8 January, in case T-20/24, the General Court of the European Union rejected the application for registration of the EU trade mark nº 015225253, "€$ We Think for You".
In 2016, the Polish company Cinkciarz.pl sp. z o.o. applied to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) for registration of the stylised slogan "€$ We Think for You" as an EU figurative mark, covering goods and services in various classes of the Nice Classification. In Class 9, it covered technology and computer-related goods, in particular in the field of financial and electronic transactions, as well as information services on monetary and financial matters. In Class 36, it included financial services, including the management of transfers and transactions in euros and dollars. Lastly, in Class 45, it covered security services, monitoring of security systems and break-ins, searches for stolen goods and similar services.
Both the examiner and the EUIPO Board of Appeal rejected the application under Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the grounds that the mark was devoid of any distinctive character. They considered that the mark would be perceived merely as a promotional statement that the provider of the goods and services offered under the mark thinks of the customer and, as a specialist in currency, financial transfers and transactions in euros and dollars, offers products and services that are particularly effective or suitable in these areas.
The Polish company appealed against the decision to the General Court of the European Union, which had to determine whether the mark had sufficient distinctive character to be registered or whether it should be considered merely a promotional slogan.
The General Court upheld the decision of the EUIPO Board of Appeal, pointing out that the mark in question had a purely promotional content, unfit for trade mark protection. In particular, it noted that the mark suggested that the company offered products and services specialised in monetary and financial matters, which reinforced the idea that it did not fulfil the function of indicating a specific commercial origin. It argued that the relevant public, in this case English-speaking consumers in the European Union, would not have to make any significant mental effort to interpret the mark, since its meaning was clear and direct. Therefore, it was considered that the mark would not be perceived as an indication of origin, but rather as a slogan highlighting the company's ability to provide reliable financial services. As a result, the General Court rejected the appeal in its entirety and confirmed that the mark "€$ We Think for You" did not meet the requirements for distinctiveness.
Details
- Publication date
- 21 January 2025
- Author
- European Innovation Council and SMEs Executive Agency