Who Is That Masked Chocolate Candy? Zorro Slashes M&Ms Over Trademark

from the let-the-debate-begin dept

You may have seen the news that Zorro Productions is suing Mars, the makers of M&M's, over a trademark infringement claim, concerning an M&Ms commercial that apparently involves some sort of Zorro costume. But wait a second... just like Sherlock Holmes, it appears that at least some of Zorro should be in the public domain by now. Pamela Chestek writes in to give her very thorough analysis of this particular case, noting that, in some ways, it may be setting up some future lawsuits concerning the difference between trademark and copyright in characters. This is an issue that is going to get increasingly important -- since (assuming Disney doesn't pull another copyright extension out of its magic bag) some characters created in the last century may start hitting the public domain with their copyrights, even as their trademarks remain. But what does that mean when it comes to using those characters? Well, with Sherlock Holmes, it means that the estate holding the rights still pretends you can't do anything, even if that's not quite true. And it looks like Zorro Productions is doing the same thing. But it's not that easy:
According to the Copyright Office, all works published before January 1, 1923 are in the public domain. So if the copyright in the original Zorro character is in the public domain, the public may also exploit the character. But how far does the right extend? As a matter of legal doctrine, in general copyright and trademark can happily co-exist. Therefore, even if Zorro was in the public domain, to the extent that Zorro has source-identifying significance (like Mickey Mouse does), Mars may use Zorro only as long as doing so isn't likely to cause confusion as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Zorro with Mars, and Mars doesn't suggest that Zorro sponsors or approves of Mars' goods. (That's an abridged version of the statutory language, don't blame me because it's almost unintelligible).

We can't know whether this might be happening without knowing what the accused work is, but the complaint may be squarely in doctrinal conflict territory. There is no suggestion that Mars used the word "Zorro"; it instead appears that ZPI is alleging that use of a Zorro character in any form is infringing. ZPI describes its proprietary character as dressed in black, wearing a flat Cordoba hat, a mask and a cape, and you can see that the registered logos of Zorro and the Zorro costume are both quite similar to the public domain Zorro.... So to the extent that the claim of proprietary rights in the Zorro character is co-extensive with the copyright in the character, which gives?
In the end, Chestek gives the edge to Mars, but isn't entirely sure because it's not entirely clear what the actual infringement is. Many of the news stories show an image of an M&M candy in a sorta-Zorro-like outfit, but Chestek notes that the lawsuit describes someone in a Halloween costume, which implies it may be something different. Assuming that it is a person in a Halloween costume, Chestek suggests that Mars has a strong case, and Zorro may be missing the mark:
My vote right now is that the mere use of a character in the public domain, particularly when it appears to be someone simply wearing a Halloween costume representing the character, isn't going to be perceived as an endorsement in the first instance.
However, that could change, depending on the specific use, and if there is some impression of "endorsement." Ah, the public domain. It isn't quite what it used to be.

Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 30th, 2010 @ 10:36am

    What's a public domain? Copyright for eternity!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. identicon
    Travis Grady, Mar 30th, 2010 @ 10:39am

    I haven't seen the commercial, but why would the copyright status of Zorro matter? Wouldn't it be a clear cut case of parody which is protected under fair-use?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. identicon
    Johnny Canada, Mar 30th, 2010 @ 11:08am

    So if I rob a bank wearing a Cordoba hat and mark I can be brought up on Copywrite/Trademark infringements?

    Time to give of bank robbery as the penalties are now to stiff

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4. icon
    Esahc (profile), Mar 30th, 2010 @ 11:10am

    What about Darkwing Duck?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5. icon
    Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), Mar 30th, 2010 @ 11:19am

    Corporation? Since when?

    Wait a minute...Zorro is a business?

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6. identicon
    Krusty, Mar 30th, 2010 @ 11:30am


    It is if you listen to that damn disney!

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. identicon
    Alan, Mar 30th, 2010 @ 11:32am

    Re: Corporation? Since when?

    We have a restaurant in Toronto called Zorro's.


    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8. identicon
    Morry Inahurry, Mar 30th, 2010 @ 11:47am

    OMG Thanks for the story, I was totally going to eat Antonio Banderas.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9. identicon
    The True Zorro, Aug 5th, 2011 @ 12:13am

    ZPI is a Band of Thieves!

    As you may all know by now, ZPI lost this case, not because of a parody loophole, but because Zorro has been in the public domain since 1995 or before. The description of Zorro that ZPI claims to own first appeared in the 1920 version of The Mark of Zorro, also in the public domain. ZPI charges licensing fees for something they have no legal right to charge for, and this was ruled by a court of law in the lawsuit against the TV series Queen of Swords.

    Trademarks do NOT protect intellectual property, but certain corporate specific logos, marks and such. For instance, the famous Kraft Foods logo, with its distinctive spelling, is a trademark. The DC Comics circle logo is a trademark. The character and license of Zorro is not a trademark. Trademark is intended to identify the source of goods or services, not to protect stories or characters. ZPI owns and controls nothing. Zorro is fair game and anyone they sue is going to win.

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10. identicon
    Nick Rhys, Nov 18th, 2011 @ 7:02am

    Re: ZPI is a Band of Thieves!

    is this certain? we've been thinking of doing a small zorro musical in our theater next year and found out about ZPI's copyright claims.
    but irrespective of their claims: isn't it a legal regulation that copyrights expire 70 years after the the authors death? in zorros case the author died 1958 and the rights should therefore expire in 2028. until then the copyrights should remain with mr. mcculley's heirs.
    are they somehow affiliated with ZPI?
    how could a courts decision overrule this 70 years copyright law? we would still love to write and produce this musical and have to make certain we don't get sued. ;-)

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11. identicon
    Nick Rhys, Nov 18th, 2011 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: ZPI is a Band of Thieves!

    btw. the 70 years regulation concerns european law.
    thanks nik

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Insider Shop - Show Your Support!

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.