DC Comics V Mark Towle

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 54 Page ID #:2064
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 DC COMICS 12 13 v. Plaintiff, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CV 11-3934 RSWL (OPx) ORDER re: Defendant Mark Towles Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [41]; Plaintiff DC Comics Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [42] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14 MARK TOWLE, an individual and d/b/a Gotham Garage, 15 and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 16 17 18 Defendants.
On January 30, 2013, Defendant Mark Towles Motion
19 for Partial Summary Judgment [41] and Plaintiff DC 20 Comics Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [42] came 21 on for regular calendar before the Court. The Court
22 having reviewed all papers submitted pertaining to 23 these Motions and having considered all arguments 24 presented to the Court, NOW FINDS AND RULES AS FOLLOWS: 25 The Court GRANTS in Part and DENIES in Part The Court DENIES Defendants
26 Plaintiffs Motion. 27 Motion. 28 ///
1 2
I. BACKGROUND This Action stems from a Complaint filed by
3 Plaintiff DC Comics (Plaintiff) against Defendant 4 Mark Towle d/b/a Gotham Garage (Defendant) and Does 1 5 through 10 for (1) Copyright Infringement, (2) 6 Trademark Infringement, and (3) Unfair Competition [1]. 7 A. 8 Undisputed Facts Plaintiff is a New York General Partnership
9 consisting of E.C. Publications, Inc. and Warner 10 Communications Inc. Pl.s Statement of Uncontroverted
11 Facts and Conclusions of Law (SUF) 1 [43]. 12 Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest to Detective 13 Comics, Inc., National Comics Publications, Inc., 14 National Periodical Publications, Inc. (National 15 Periodical), and DC Comics Inc. Id. 2. Plaintiff
16 is the publisher of comic books featuring the world17 famous Batman and his Batmobile. Id. 3-4.
18 Originally introduced in 1941, the Batmobile is a 19 fictional high-tech automobile that Batman employs as 20 his primary mode of transportation. Id. 9-10.
21 Batman and his Batmobile vehicle have appeared in comic 22 books, television shows, and blockbuster movies, 23 including the television series, Batman, that first 24 appeared in 1966 and the 1989 film, Batman. 25 13, 27. Id. 7,
Plaintiff owns the copyright registrations to Id. 12.
26 the Batman comic books. 27
In 1965, Plaintiffs predecessor, National
28 Periodical, licensed its Batman literary property to

2
1 American Broadcasting Company (ABC) for use in the 2 1966 Batman television series, which starred Adam West 3 as Batman. Id. 13. ABC contracted with Greenway
4 Productions, Inc. (Greenway) and Twentieth Century5 Fox Television, Inc. (Fox) to produce the television 6 series. Id. 15. Fox and Greenway own the copyright
7 registrations for all of the episodes of the 1960s 8 Batman television series. Id. 16. The Batmobile
9 that appeared in the television series (hereinafter, 10 the 1966 Batmobile) was manufactured by Barris Kustom 11 City and designed by George Barris. Id. 19. Barris
12 Kustom City retained title to the original Batmobile 13 vehicle that was used in the filming of the television 14 show. 15 Id.
Plaintiff also licensed its Batman literary In 1979, Plaintiff
16 property to produce motion films.
17 entered into an agreement with Batman Productions, 18 Inc., granting the use of its Batman literary property 19 in feature-length motion pictures. Id. 25. These
20 rights were assigned to Warner Bros. Inc. (Warner 21 Bros.) and resulted in a series of Batman films, 22 including the 1989 Batman film to which Warner Bros. 23 owns the copyright registration. Id. 27-28. 24 Furst was hired to construct the Batmobile that 25 appeared in the 1989 film (hereinafter, the 1989 26 Batmobile). 27 Id. 31. Anton
Plaintiff also owns a number of Batman-related
28 trademarks, including, the BATMOBILE wordmark, the BAT

3
1 emblem design mark, the BAT REP II design mark, the 2 BATMAN wordmark, and other variations of the Batman 3 symbol. Id. 35; see below. The trademarks are
4 registered in various classes, and appear on 5 merchandise such as toy figurines and automobiles, 6 apparel, and household goods. Id. 37, 40.
7 Plaintiff also licenses to Fiberglass Freaks the 8 manufacture and customization of full-size automobiles 9 into the Batmobile vehicles featuring Plaintiffs 10 trademarks. Id. 39. Plaintiff has also contracted
11 with George Barris, the designer of the original 1966 12 Batmobile, to produce replicas of the 1966 Batmobile, 13 featuring Plaintiffs trademarks, and to exhibit them 14 around the world. 15 Id. 38.
Defendant is the owner, operator, and manager of a
16 business producing custom cars modeled after vehicles 17 found in various television shows and movies. 18 44. Id.
Defendant has been producing and selling replica
19 vehicles based on the 1966 and 1989 Batmobile vehicles 20 and car kits that allow others to customize their 21 vehicles into the Batmobile. Id. 45-48, 50.
22 Defendant has also manufactured and distributed various 23 automobile parts and accessories featuring the Batman 24 trademarks. Id. 51. Defendant does business through
25 the websites www.gothamgarage.net, 26 www.gothamgarage.com, www.marktowle.com,, and 27 www.batmobilereplicas.com, which use Plaintiffs 28 trademarks to promote Defendants business.
4
Id. 52-
1 53. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 856045 858860 828412 2457655 1652640 839561 1221720 1587507 25 28 21 41 41 16 16 9

5
Reg. No. 1581725 1581593 1581659 2119266 3299017 3110604 3326043 3313612 1219120
Plaintiffs Trademarks Class Mark 28 21 25 16 Bat Emblem 9 16 25 28 16 Bat Emblem (Batman Begins)
Bat Rep II BATMAN (Word Mark)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
4246497 1124961 1179342 Serial No. 85143617
40 28 28 12
BATMOBILE (Word Mark)
///
6
1 B. 2
Procedural History On May 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Complaint
3 against Defendant [1], and on November 22, 2011, 4 Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint [13]. In its
5 First Amended Complaint (FAC), Plaintiff asserts that 6 the Defendant has infringed on the copyrighted versions 7 of the 1966 Batmobile and the 1989 Batmobile. 8 Plaintiff also asserts that Defendant has infringed 9 upon its trademarks in marketing and selling these 10 infringing vehicles. 11 On December 16, 2011, Defendant filed a Motion to
12 Dismiss Claim of Copyright Infringement pursuant to 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [15]. The On
14 Court denied the motion on January 26, 2012 [21].
15 February 14, 2012, Defendant filed an Answer, asserting 16 several affirmative defenses, including laches, unclean 17 hands, and fair use [23]. 18 On December 26, 2012, Defendant filed the present
19 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [41] and Plaintiff 20 filed the present Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 21 [42]. 22 The Parties present motions seek summary judgment
23 as to Plaintiffs trademark, copyright, and unfair 24 competition causes of action, and on Defendants laches 25 defense. 26 27 28 ///
7
1 2
II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no
3 genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is 4 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 5 P. 56. Fed. R. Civ.
A genuine issue is one in which the evidence is
6 such that a reasonable fact-finder could return a 7 verdict for the non-moving party. 8 Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). 9 A party seeking summary judgment always bears the Anderson v. Liberty
10 initial burden of establishing the absence of a genuine 11 issue of material fact. 12 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 Where the moving party will
13 have the burden of proof on an issue at trial, the 14 movant must affirmatively demonstrate that no 15 reasonable trier of fact could find other than for the 16 moving party. Soremekun v. Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509
17 F.3d 978, 984 (2007). 18 Once the moving party makes this showing, the
19 non-moving party must set forth facts showing that a 20 genuine issue of disputed fact remains. 21 U.S. at 322. Celotex, 477
The non-moving party is required by
22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56 to go beyond 23 the pleadings and designate specific facts showing a 24 genuine issue for trial exists. 25 26 27 28 ///
8
Id. at 324.
1 2 A. 3
III. DISCUSSION Evidentiary Objections In ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment, courts
4 consider only evidence that would be admissible at 5 trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Here, the Parties have Given the
6 filed over forty evidentiary objections.
7 number of objections made by the Parties, the Court 8 will address the evidentiary objections in two separate 9 orders. For the purposes of this ruling, the Court has
10 considered only admissible evidence. 11 B. 12 Trademark Infringement To sustain a claim for trademark infringement,
13 Plaintiff must show (1) that it has valid trademark 14 rights; and (2) that Defendants use of a similar mark 15 is likely to cause confusion. Applied Info. Sci. Corp. The
16 v. eBAY, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2007). 17 core element of trademark infringement is the
18 likelihood of confusion, i.e., whether the similarity 19 of the marks is likely to confuse customers about the 20 source of the products. E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Gallo
21 Cattle Co., 967 F.2d 1280, 1290 (9th Cir. 1992). 22 Courts look to the following factors, known as the 23 Sleekcraft test, for guidance in determining the 24 likelihood of confusion: (1) strength of Plaintiffs 25 mark; (2) proximity of the goods; (3) similarity of the 26 marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) marketing 27 channels used; (6) type of goods and the degree of care 28 likely to be exercised by the purchaser; (7)
9
1 defendants intent in selecting the mark; and the (8) 2 likelihood of expansion of the product lines. Dr.
3 Seuss Enters. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 4 1394, 1404 (9th Cir. 1997) (citing AMF Inc. v. 5 Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341, 348-49 (9th Cir. 6 1979)). 7 Although courts should consider these factors to
8 determine the issue of likelihood of confusion, [n]o 9 mechanistic formula or list can set forth in advance 10 the variety of elements that comprise the market 11 context from which likelihood of confusion must be 12 determined. Id. (citing Restatement (Third) of
13 Unfair Competition 21, comment a (1995)) (internal 14 quotations omitted). As such, this list is not
15 exhaustive and [o]ther variables may come into play 16 depending on the particular facts presented. 17 (citing Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 348 n.11). 18 Furthermore, although disfavored in trademark Id.
19 infringement cases, summary judgment may be entered 20 when no genuine issue of material fact exists. See
21 Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 22 630 (9th Cir. 2005). Whether likelihood of confusion
23 is more a question of law or one of fact can depend on 24 the circumstances of each particular case. Alpha
25 Indus., Inc. v. Alpha Steel Tube & Shapes, Inc., 616 26 F.2d 440, 443 (9th Cir. 1980). And, a question of fact
27 may be resolved as a matter of law if reasonable minds 28 cannot differ and the evidence permits only one
10
1 conclusion.
See Sanders v. Parker Drilling Co., 911
2 F.2d 191, 194 (9th Cir. 1990). 3 The legal conclusion that confusion is likely must
4 rest on the particular facts of the case, but when all 5 of the material facts have been determined, the 6 ultimate determination of likelihood of confusion lies 7 within the exclusive jurisdiction of the court. 8 Alpha Indus, Inc., 616 F.2d at 443-44; see also 9 Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 348. 10 First, the Court finds that Plaintiff has valid See
11 trademark rights in the trademarks at issue in this 12 case. Under the Lanham Act, registration of a
13 trademark creates a rebuttable presumption that the 14 mark is valid, but the presumption evaporates as soon 15 as evidence of invalidity is presented. 16 1051. 15 U.S.C.
Plaintiff owns the Bat Emblem mark, the Bat
17 Emblem (Batman Begins) mark, Bat Rep II mark, the 18 BATMAN word mark, and the BATMOBILE word mark in 19 various classes. Defendant puts forth no evidence or
20 argument to demonstrate that these marks are invalid. 21 Defendants only argument with respect to
22 Plaintiffs trademark infringement claim is that 23 Plaintiff did not own the BATMOBILE mark in Class 12 24 for automobiles at the time Plaintiff filed this 25 Action and that registration in Class 40 did not occur 26 until November 20, 2012. However, under the Lanham
27 Act, to establish standing to sue for trademark 28 infringement, a plaintiff must show that he or she is
11
1 either (1) the owner of a federal mark registration, 2 (2) the owner of an unregistered mark, or (3) a 3 nonowner with a cognizable interest in the allegedly 4 infringed trademark. Halicki Films, LLC v. Sanderson
5 Sales & Mktg., 547 F.3d 1213, 1225-26 (9th Cir. 2008). 6 Plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that it is the 7 registered owner of a mark for any class of products, 8 even one that does not compete directly with 9 Defendants products. Id. at 1227. The question of
10 whether the products on which the allegedly infringing 11 mark appears are sufficiently related to goods sold by 12 the plaintiff such that the defendants actions qualify 13 as infringement is, by contrast, a merits question. 14 Id. 15 Defendant does not dispute that he has used or uses In fact, Defendant does really Defendant does
16 Plaintiffs trademarks.
17 contest Plaintiffs trademark claim.
18 not dispute that he has manufactured and distributed 19 automobile parts and accessories featuring the 20 trademarks at issue. 21 (GIF) 51 [66]. Def.s Stmt. of Genuine Issues For example, Defendant produced Drey
22 vehicle floor mats with bat symbols on them. 23 Decl. Ex. H [55].
The vehicle doors of Defendants
24 1966 Batmobile replicas also have bat symbols on them. 25 Joint Stipulation, Ex. 24 [45].1 26 27 28
The Parties filed a Joint Stipulation stating that the Parties stipulate to certain facts and evidence, including as to the authenticity of certain exhibits [45]. For the purposes of the present motions, the Court grants the stipulation. 12
1
The fire extinguisher
1 in the 1966 Batmobile replica also has a bat symbol on 2 it. Id. Defendant does not dispute that he does
3 business through a website called 4 batmobilereplicas.com.2 GIF 52. He also does not
5 dispute that he uses these trademarks to promote his 6 business. 7 Id. 53.
Next, the Court finds that Defendants unauthorized
8 use of Plaintiffs trademarks causes a likelihood of 9 confusionthat is, whether the similarity of the marks 10 is likely to confuse customers about the source of the 11 products. Brookfield Commcns, Inc. v. W. Coast Entmt
12 Corp., 174 F.3d 1036, 1053 (9th Cir. 1999). 13 First, with respect to similarity of the marks,
14 the greater the similarity between the two marks at 15 issue, the greater the likelihood of confusion. 16 at 1206. Id.
In the similarity analysis: (1) Marks should
17 be considered in their entirety and as they appear in 18 the marketplace; (2) Similarity is best adjudged by 19 appearance, sound, and meaning; and (3) Similarities 20 weigh more heavily than differences. Entrepreneur
21 Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1144 (9th Cir. 22 2002). [S]imilarity of design is determined by
23 considering the overall impression created by the mark 24 as a whole rather than simply comparing individual 25 features. adidas-Am., Inc. v. Payless Shoesource,
26 Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1052 (D. Or. 2008) (citing 27 28

Use of a trademark in a domain name constitutes use under the Lanham Act. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1053. 13
2
1 Exxon Corp. v. Texas Motor Exch., Inc., 628 F.2d 500, 2 505 (5th Cir. 1980)). There is no dispute that
3 Defendant has used marks that are identical to 4 Plaintiffs registered marks. For example, Defendant
5 has used the BATMAN and BATMOBILE word marks on his 6 advertising and promotional materials. 7 52. See, e.g., GIF
Further, Defendant also has used various bat
8 symbols that are very similar to the BAT Emblem, BAT 9 Emblem (Batman Begins) and BAT REP II marks. 10 Stipulation, Ex. 24. See Joint
For example, the bat symbol
11 appearing on the vehicle doors for the 1966 Batmobile 12 replicas is a stylized bat. Defendants bat symbols
13 are slightly different from Plaintiffs registered 14 trademarks, but Defendants marks appear substantially 15 the same overall. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 /// 28 ///
14
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Defendants Marks
Plaintiffs Marks Bat Emblem
Bat Emblem (Batman Begins)
Bat Rep II
21 Thus, there is no genuine issue of fact regarding the 22 similarity of the marks. 23 Second, the strength of the trademarks at issue
24 here weigh in favor of finding a likelihood of 25 confusion. The purpose of examining the strength of
26 the plaintiffs mark is to determine the scope of 27 trademark protection to which the mark is entitled. 28 See Entrepreneur Media, 279 F.3d at 1141.
15
The more
1 unique the mark, the greater the degree of protection. 2 See id. Trademarks may be sorted into five categories
3 of increased strength and distinctiveness: (1) generic; 4 (2) descriptive; (3) suggestive; (4) arbitrary; or (5) 5 fanciful. Two Pesos, Inc., v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 Fanciful marks, the strongest
6 U.S. 763, 768 (1992).
7 type, are wholly made-up terms, such as Clorox 8 bleach. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1058 n.19. Fanciful
9 marks consist of coined phrases that also have no 10 commonly known connection with the product at hand. 11 See Dreamwerks Prod. Grp., Inc. v. SKG Studio, 142 F.3d 12 1127, 1130 n.7 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that Kodak is 13 a fanciful mark). A mark is strong if it is
14 memorable and if the public would likely associate it 15 with the marks owner. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1058.
16 As the Ninth Circuit recently explained, [t]he 17 stronger a mark meaning the more likely it is to be 18 remembered and associated in the public mind with the 19 marks owner the greater the protection it is 20 accorded by the trademark laws. 21 Id. at 1058.
The marks at issue here include a series of design
22 marks featuring a bat as well as the word marks 23 BATMOBILE and BATMAN. 24 distinct. The bat design marks are
The terms BATMOBILE and BATMAN are fanciful
25 words, as they are coined phrases that evoke the bat 26 persona of the Batman comic book character. The public
27 would likely associate the marks with Plaintiffs 28 Batman comic books, merchandise, motion pictures, and
16
1 television programs. 2 Third, with regard to the issue of actual
3 confusion, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that 4 evidence of actual confusion is not required to 5 establish likelihood of confusion. See Am. Intern.
6 Grp., Inc. v. Am. Intern. Bank, 926 F.2d 829 (9th Cir. 7 1991). Nevertheless, Defendant admits here that most
8 of his potential customers asked if he had a 9 relationship with Warner Bros. or was licensed by 10 Warner Bros. 11 Dep.). Drey Decl. Ex. H, at 94:21-95:14 (Towle
As revealed at the hearing on the present This
12 motions, Warner Bros. is an affiliated entity. 13 evidence strongly suggests that there was actual
14 confusion, as customers wondered whether Defendant was 15 authorized to use Plaintiffs marks. Initial interest
16 confusion is customer confusion that creates initial 17 interest in a competitors product. Although dispelled
18 before an actual sale occurs, initial interest 19 confusion impermissibly capitalizes on the goodwill 20 associated with a mark and is therefore actionable 21 trademark infringement. Playboy Enters., Inc. v.
22 Netscape Commcns Corp., 354 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 23 2004). 24 Fourth, the proximity or relatedness of the goods Goods are
25 favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.
26 proximate if they are similar in use and function and 27 would be reasonably thought by the buying public to 28 come from the same source if sold under the same mark.
17
1 Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 348, 350.
Where goods are
2 related or complementary, the danger of consumer 3 confusion is heightened. 4 F.2d at 1291. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 967 Defendant
The goods here are the same.
5 manufactures replicas of the 1989 and 1966 Batmobile 6 vehicles, and emblazon car parts and accessories with 7 the bat symbol. Plaintiff offers full-size and toy
8 versions of the Batmobile, using its registered 9 trademarks. Plaintiff also offers car accessories
10 featuring their trademarks, including car mats and 11 wheel covers. Kogan Decl. Ex. A. This factor weighs
12 in favor of Plaintiff. 13 Fifth, the Court must next consider whether the
14 predominant purchasers of the parties goods are 15 similar or different, and whether the parties 16 marketing approaches resemble one another. Aurora
17 World, Inc. v. Ty, Inc., 719 F.Supp. 2d 1115, 1162 18 (citing Grey v. Meijer, Inc., 295 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 19 2002)). The greater the degree of overlap, the more Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d
20 likely there is to be confusion. 21 at 353.
Here, Plaintiff and Defendant are in direct The undisputed facts show that they
22 competition.
23 directly market their products online and at car shows. 24 Kogan Decl., Exs. A, H. As such, this factor favors a
25 finding of likelihood of confusion. 26 Sixth, the Court needs to consider the type of
27 goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by 28 the purchasers. Likelihood of confusion is determined
18
1 on the basis of a reasonably prudent consumer, so 2 courts have expected consumers to be more discerning 3 and less easily confused when [they are] purchasing 4 expensive items. Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1060. On
5 the other hand, when dealing with inexpensive products, 6 customers are likely to exercise less care, thus making 7 confusion more likely. Id. Defendants replica
8 vehicles are expensive goods and the reasonably prudent 9 consumer would likely be more discriminating and likely 10 to ask questions regarding his product. Thus, this
11 factor weighs against finding a likelihood of 12 confusion. 13 Seventh, the defendants intent in selecting the
14 mark must also be evaluated in determining the 15 likelihood of confusion. Knowing adoption of a mark
16 that is closely similar to one that is used by another 17 is a basis for inferring intent to deceive the public, 18 which is strong evidence of a likelihood of 19 confusion. See Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss, Here, Defendant
20 6 F.3d 1385, 1394 (9th Cir. 1993).
21 admits his knowledge of the Batman property including 22 the Batmobile vehicles and the trademarks, and he 23 knowingly copied the marks. SUF 54. This permits an
24 inference of an intent to deceive the public. 25 Lastly, the Court can look to the likelihood of A strong possibility
26 expansion of the product lines.
27 that either party will expand its business to compete 28 with the other weighs in favor of finding infringement.
19
1 Sleekcraft, 599 F.2d at 354.
However, where, as here,
2 the Parties already compete to a significant degree 3 because they sell related products and use similar 4 marketing channels, this factor is relatively 5 unimportant to the likelihood of confusion analysis. 6 See Brookfield, 174 F.3d at 1055. Neither Party has
7 submitted evidence of planned expansion, and Plaintiff 8 does not allege that Defendants presence is hindering 9 its expansion plans. 10 Based on the foregoing, no triable issues of fact
11 exist as to whether Defendants use of Plaintiffs 12 marks is likely to confuse United States consumers. 13 Furthermore, Defendant has not met his burden to set 14 forth facts showing that genuine issues of disputed 15 fact remain with regard to a finding of likelihood of 16 confusion. See PepsiCo, Inc., 27 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1948, In fact, the relevant
17 1950 (C.D. Cal. 1993).
18 Sleekcraft factors support a finding of likelihood of 19 confusion as a matter of law. In light of this finding
20 and the fact that there are no triable issues of fact 21 with regard to the validity of Plaintiffs marks, the 22 Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary 23 Judgment as to Plaintiffs trademark infringement claim 24 and DENIES Defendants Motion as to this claim. 25 C. 26 Unfair Competition Whether Defendants sale of replica Batmobile
27 vehicles is likely to confuse United States consumers 28 is also critical in determining whether the Court
20
1 should grant summary judgment on Plaintiffs claim for 2 common law unfair competition. The element of
3 likelihood of confusion also applies to this claim. 4 Moreover, the courts have uniformly held that
5 common law and statutory trademark infringement are 6 merely specific aspects of unfair competition. New
7 West Corp. v. NYM Co. of Cal., Inc., 595 F.2d 1194, 8 1201 (9th Cir. 1979). Under the Lanham Act, the
9 ultimate test is whether the public is likely to be 10 deceived or confused by the similarity of the marks. 11 Smith v. Chanel, Inc., 402 F.2d 562, 563 (9th Cir. 12 1968). Whether we call the violation infringement,
13 unfair competition or false designation of origin, the 14 test is identical is there a likelihood of 15 confusion? 16 New West Corp., 595 F.2d at 1201.
The decisive test of common law unfair competition
17 is whether the public is likely to be deceived about 18 the source of goods or services by the defendants 19 conduct. Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sci. v.
20 Benson, 15 Cal. 2d 685, 690 (1940); South Bay Chevrolet 21 v. Gen. Motors Acceptance Corp., 72 Cal. App. 4th 861, 22 865 (1999). The likelihood of public confusion,
23 although innocently created, will warrant injunctive 24 relief against unfair competition. Tomlin v. Walt
25 Disney Prods., 18 Cal. App. 3d 226, 231 (1971). 26 Defendant has not demonstrated that there is a
27 triable issue of fact as to whether Defendants use of 28 bat symbols and Plaintiffs trademarks is likely to
21
1 confuse customers.
As courts have uniformly held that
2 common law and statutory trademark infringement are 3 merely specific aspects of unfair competition, a 4 finding of likelihood of confusion under Plaintiffs 5 trademark infringement claim also supports a finding of 6 likelihood of confusion under Plaintiffs common law 7 unfair competition claim. For the foregoing reasons,
8 the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary 9 Judgment as to its unfair competition claim and DENIES 10 Defendants Motion as to this claim. 11 D. 12 Copyright Infringement To establish copyright infringement, two elements
13 must be proven: 1) ownership of a valid copyright; and 14 2) copying of protected elements of the plaintiffs 15 work. See Feist Publns, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co.,
16 499 U.S. 340, 361 (1991). 17 Copying may be established by showing that the
18 works in question are substantially similar in their 19 protected elements and that the infringing party had 20 access to the copyrighted work. 21 F.3d 1069, 1072 (9th Cir. 2002). 22 A plaintiff satisfies the access element by showing Metcalf v. Bochco, 294
23 that a defendant had an opportunity to view or to copy 24 plaintiffs work. Three Boys Music Corp. v. Bolton,
25 212 F.3d 477, 482 (2000) (citing Sid and Marty Krofft 26 Television Prods., Inc. v. McDonalds Corp., 562 F.2d 27 1157, 1172 (9th Cir. 1977)). Where a high degree of
28 access is shown, a lower standard of proof of

22
1 substantial similarity is required. 2 376 F.3d 841, 844 (9th. Cir. 2004). 3 the inverse ratio rule. 4 1353, 1356 (9th Cir. 1990). 5
Switsky v. Carey, This is known as
Shaw v. Lindheim, 919 F.2d
In analyzing whether the two works are
6 substantially similar, the court must first distinguish 7 between the protectable and unprotectable material 8 because a party claiming infringement may place no 9 reliance upon any similarity in expression resulting 10 from unprotected elements. Apple v. Microsoft, 35 F.3d Then,
11 1435, 1446 (9th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted).
12 a two-part test is used to determine whether the two 13 works are substantially similar: an intrinsic and 14 extrinsic part. As it evolved, the test was
15 clarified by the Court in Apple Computer v. Microsoft 16 Corp.: 17 18 19 20 [T]he extrinsic test now objectively considers whether there are substantial similarities in both ideas and expression, whereas the intrinsic test continues to measure expression subjectively. The intrinsic
21 35 F.3d 1435, 1442 (9th Cir. 1994).
22 test . . . should measure substantial similarity in 23 expressions . . . depending on the response of the 24 ordinary reasonable person. . . . [I]t does not depend 25 on the type of external criteria and analysis which 26 marks the extrinsic test. Shaw, 919 F.2d at 1356 In decisions under the
27 (internal quotations omitted).
28 intrinsic test, analytic dissection and expert

23
1 testimony are not appropriate.
Id.
Once the
2 extrinsic test is satisfied, the fact finder applies 3 the intrinsic test. 4 at 485. 5 Defendant disputes that Plaintiff has established Three Boys Music Corp., 212 F.3d
6 that it owns valid copyrights to the 1966 and 1989 7 Batmobile vehicles and that the Batmobiles are 8 copyrightable under the Copyright Act. Otherwise,
9 Defendant does not deny that he has produced replicas 10 of the 1966 and 1989 Batmobile. 11 As a preliminary matter, the Court addresses
12 Defendants argument that Plaintiff should not be able 13 to allege infringement of the 1966 and 1989 Batmobile 14 vehicles because the copyright registrations for the 15 1966 Batman television show and 1989 Batman film were 16 not identified in the First Amended Complaint. 17 Defendant also claims that Plaintiff should be 18 sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for 19 this alleged litigation misconduct. The Court finds The body of
20 that these arguments wholly lack merit.
21 the First Amended Complaint identifies the 1966 and 22 1989 Batmobile vehicles, the television series, and the 23 1989 movie. FAC 8, 9, 11. The FAC states that the Moreover,
24 Batmobile is copyrightable subject matter.
25 Plaintiff does not claim in the FAC that Plaintiff owns 26 the copyright registration to the 1989 film or the 1966 27 television series. Plaintiff does not state that
28 Exhibit A represented the only copyrights in issue in

24
1 this Action.
Exhibit A is there to show that Plaintiff
2 is the owner of all the Batman literary property 3 because of its ownership of the copyrights listed in 4 Exhibit A. 5 Furthermore, any surprise that Defendant is
6 claiming based on Plaintiffs alleged failure to 7 identify the copyright registrations for the 1989 film 8 and the 1966 television series is disingenuous. 9 Plaintiff points out, Defendant himself requested 10 judicial notice of these registrations in his Motion to 11 Dismiss [15], and thus knew that Plaintiffs copyright 12 action involves these registrations. 13 14 15 1. Plaintiff Reserved Rights to the 1966 and 1989 As
Batmobiles Under copyright law, only copyright owners and
16 exclusive licensees of copyright may enforce a 17 copyright or a license. Sybersound Records, Inc. v.
18 UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir. 2008) (citing 19 17 U.S.C. 501(b)) (conferring standing only to the 20 legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right who is 21 entitled . . . to institute an action for any 22 infringement . . . while he or she is the owner of 23 it.)(internal quotation marks omitted). 24 Defendants main argument is that Plaintiff does
25 not own the copyright registrations to the 1966 Batman 26 television show and the 1989 Batman film. Therefore,
27 according to Defendant, Plaintiff does own any interest 28 in the 1966 and 1989 Batmobile vehicles.
25
It is true
1 that Greenway and Fox are the owners of the copyright 2 registrations to the episodes of the 1966 Batman 3 television series. SUF 16. Warner Bros. owns the Id. 28.
4 copyright registration to the 1989 film.
5 However, the relevant licensing agreements between 6 Plaintiff and its licensees indicate that Plaintiff 7 reserved all rights to the characters and elements 8 depicted in the Batman television series and the 1989 9 Batman film, and obtained exclusive merchandising 10 rights to the 1966 and 1989 works.3 These exclusive
11 rights are sufficient to afford Plaintiff standing. 12 In 1965, Plaintiffs predecessor, National
13 Periodical, entered into a licensing agreement with ABC 14 granting ABC rights to use the Batman literary property 15 to develop the Batman television show, including rights 16 to adapt, arrange, change, transpose, add to and 17 subtract from said property and to secure copyright 18 and renewals and extensions of copyright. 19 Stipulation, Ex. 13, at 2-3. Joint
In the agreement,
20 Plaintiff reserves all merchandising rights, defined 21 as the 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiff failed to provide any substantive briefing on its copyright interest in the Batmobile. Instead it resorted to conclusory assertions that it owns rights to the 1966 and 1988 Batmobile vehicles. Although the relevant agreements make clear that Plaintiff retained exclusive rights to the Batmobile literary property, Plaintiff was still required to brief the Court on this issue. 26
3
sole and exclusive right to produce and sell, license or grant to others the right to produce and
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
sell or license or to enter into agreements with respect to the production, distribution and exploitation of endorsements, commercial tie-ups or manufacturing privileges under which a commodity, product or service is made, manufactured, or distributed under the name of Batman or any other character in the comic book series entitled Batman, or under a name which incorporates any phrase, clause or expression used . . . in the television series. . . . Paragraph 6(C) of the licensing
11 Id. at 12-13, 6(A).
12 agreement provides that National Periodical would pay 13 ABC a share of the income derived from the exploitation 14 of this exclusive merchandising right. Thus, the
15 license agreement clearly entitles Plaintiff an 16 exclusive right to sell, distribute, and manufacture 17 products derived from the elements that appeared in the 18 Batman television show, including the Batmobile. The
19 Courts objective in the construction of the language 20 used in the contract is to determine and effectuate the 21 intention of the parties. 22 4th 1159, 1166 (1992). Winet v. Price, 4 Cal. App.
If contractual language is Bank of the West v.
23 clear and explicit, it governs.
24 Superior Court, 2 Cal. 4th 1254, 1264 (1992). 25 This interpretation of the license agreement is
26 consistent with a 1966 agreement involving National 27 Periodical, Fox, Greenway, and George Barris, the 28 designer of the 1966 Batmobile.
27
In the agreement,
1 Plaintiff specifically reserved rights in the design of 2 the Batmobile: 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHEREAS, NATIONAL PERIODICAL PUBLICATIONS, INC. is the owner of all copyrights, trademarks and all other rights including commercial and exploitive rights to the feature, BATMAN, and to all the contents of the said feature, including the Batmobile . . . Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained, NATIONAL PERIODICAL (Plaintiffs predecessor in interest) acknowledges that BARRIS is the owner of the vehicle known as Batmobile I as used in the BATMAN television series and feature motion picture and that BARRIS, FOX and GREENWAY are the joint owners of the design of said Batmobile I as provided for in Article 7 of that certain agreement between FOX and Greenway, and BARRIS, dated September 1, 1965, as follows: 7. Any and all right, title and interest in and to the design of Batmobile I resulting from the application of the required Batmobile features in and to Owners prototype Lincoln chassis, save and except the name Batmobile and the Batmobile features set forth in Article 10 hereof and in the drawings and exhibits attached hereto, and of the completed Batmobile provided for in Article 2 hereof, shall forever be vested in and Owned
28
1 2 3 4
jointly by Owner and Producer, subject only to any and all right, title and interest of National Periodical Publications, Inc. . . . in and to said Batmobile features in said design. The
5 Joint Stipulation, Ex. 15 (emphasis added).
6 unambiguous terms of the contract indicate that 7 Plaintiff reserved rights to the 1966 Batmobile. 8 Plaintiff also reserved rights to the Batmobile In 1979,
9 depicted in the 1989 motion picture.
10 Plaintiff entered into a licensing agreement with 11 Batman Productions, Inc., who later transferred its 12 rights to Warner Bros., granting Batman Productions 13 option rights to create a motion picture using the 14 Batman literary property. 15 Art. I, 1. Joint Stipulation, Ex. 16,
The contract states that Plaintiff
16 reserved all merchandising rights with respect to the 17 new characters, additional characters, new elements, 18 and additional elements, of any motion picture produced 19 via the agreement. Id. at Article II, 5(c). Under
20 the agreement additional characters is defined as 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 any fictional character or characters newly created by [Batman Productions] and which, but for the operation of this agreement, would constitute an infringement of DCs copyright or trademark in or to any of the characters constituting the Property. . . or any characters contained in the Property who are newly costumed or in any way altered by [Batman Productions] for any motion pictures.
29
1 Id. at Art. II, 11.
Additional elements is defined
2 as any device or thing newly created by [Batman 3 Productions] and which, but for the operation of this 4 agreement, would constitute an infringement of DCs 5 copyright or trademark in or to any device or thing 6 contained in the Property. Id. The licensing
7 agreement explicitly defined the Batmobile as being 8 part of the Property licensed to Batman Productions. 9 Id. at Art. I, 4(b). Not only did Plaintiff reserve
10 these exclusive merchandising rights, Plaintiff also 11 reserved rights to copyright and trademark any 12 additional characters or elements featured in future 13 Batman motion pictures. 14 Id. at Art. II, 5(c), 11.
Based on these agreements reserving exclusive
15 ownership rights to the 1989 and 1966 Batmobiles, 16 Plaintiff has standing to assert this copyright 17 infringement action. See Halicki Films LLC, v.
18 Sanderson Sales and Mktg. et al., 547 F.3d 1213, 1220 19 (9th Cir. 2008) (Plaintiffs reservation of 20 merchandising rights provides standing in copyright 21 infringement action). 22 23 24 2. Defendants Replica Batmobiles Are Unauthorized
Derivative Works Even if Plaintiff did not expressly reserve rights
25 to the Batman and Batmobile elements appearing in the 26 Batman movie and television show, Plaintiff is also 27 entitled to sue for infringement because it clearly 28 owns copyrights to the original comic book series in
30
1 which the Batmobile originally appeared.
As the
2 copyright holder to the Batman comic books, Plaintiff 3 has the exclusive right to prepare derivative works. 4 17 U.S.C. 103(a) (The subject matter of a copyright 5 . . . includes compilations and derivative works. . . 6 .). [T]he protection of derivative rights extends
7 beyond mere protection against unauthorized copying to 8 include the right to make other versions of, perform, 9 or exhibit the work. Lone Ranger Television v.
10 Program Radio Corp., 740 F.2d 718, 722 (9th Cir. 11 1984)(quoting Russell v. Price, 612 F.2d 1123, 1128 12 n.16 (9th Cir. 1979)). The owner of the underlying
13 work has standing to assert copyright infringement of 14 the derivative work, even when the defendant copies 15 only from the derivative work. 16 3.05. 17 [A] work will be considered a derivative work only 1-3 Nimmer on Copyright
18 if it would be considered an infringing work if the 19 material which it has derived from a prior work had 20 been taken without the consent of a copyright 21 proprietor of such prior work. Litchfield v.
22 Spielberg, 736 F.2d 1352, 1357 (9th Cir. 1984). 23 The Defendants replica Batmobile vehicles are
24 derivative works of the original Batmobile vehicles. 25 Here, the copyright registration for the 1989 film 26 explicitly states that it is the derivative work of the 27 Batman comic book series and the Batman television 28 series. Joint Stipulation, Ex. 3.
31
The Batmobile
1 vehicle in the 1989 film is derivative of the Batmobile 2 character that appeared in the comic book series, even 3 though the exact design of the 1989 Batmobile is not 4 identical to the original Batmobile vehicles. The 1989
5 Batmobile is merely an adaptation or a recasting of the 6 original Batmobile vehicles. Defendants copying of
7 the 1989 Batmobile vehicle thus copies from both the 8 derivative 1989 Batman film and the Batmobile from the 9 original comic books. 10 The 1966 television series, which copies many
11 elements from the original comic books series including 12 Batman, Robin, and the Batmobile, is a derivative work 13 of the Batman comic book series. The agreement between
14 Plaintiff and ABC requires that ABC give credit to 15 Plaintiff as the originator of the ideas and 16 expressions in the TV show. Joint Stipulation, Ex. 13.
17 As with the 1989 film, the Batmobile in the 1966 18 television show incorporates elements from the 19 Batmobiles in the comic book series and is merely an 20 adaptation of Batmobile character that appeared in the 21 comic books. Defendants copying of the 1966 Batmobile
22 vehicle copies from both the derivative Batman 23 television show and the Batmobile from the original 24 comic books. 25 Accordingly, Plaintiff has standing to assert
26 copyright infringement. 27 28 ///

32
1 2 3
3.
The Batmobile Is Entitled To Copyright
Protection as a Character Defendants Opposition focuses on denying that the For
4 Batmobile is entitled to any copyright protection.
5 the reasons discussed below, the Court finds that the 6 Batmobile is entitled to copyright protection as a 7 character. 8 Whether a particular work is subject to copyright
9 protection is a mixed question of fact and law . . . . 10 Societe Civile Succession v. Renoir, 549 F.3d 1182, 11 1185 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Cavalier v. Random House, 12 Inc., 297 F.3d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 2002)). The owner of
13 a copyright in various works embodying a character can 14 acquire copyright protection for the character itself. 15 See, e.g., Warner Bros. Inc. v. Am. Broad. Co. Inc., 16 720 F.2d 231, 235 (2d Cir. 1983) (Plaintiffs own the 17 copyrights in various works embodying the character 18 Superman and have thereby acquired copyright protection 19 for the character itself.) (citation omitted); New 20 Line Cinema Corp. v. Bertlesman Music Group, Inc., 693 21 F.Supp. 1517, 1521 n. 5 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (Because New 22 Line has valid copyrights in the Nightmare series, it 23 is clear that it has acquired copyright protection as 24 well for the character of Freddy.) (citing Warner 25 Bros., 720 F.2d at 235). 26 The Ninth Circuit has explained that copyright
27 protection may be afforded to characters visually 28 depicted in a television series or in a movie.

33
Olson
1 v. Natl Broad. Co., 855 F.2d 1446, 1452 (9th Cir. 2 1988) (internal citations omitted). However, it is
3 unclear what legal standard courts should apply in 4 determining whether visually depicted characters are 5 subject to copyright protection. See
6 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 7 900 F. Supp. 1287, 1295 (C.D. Cal. 1995); Anderson v. 8 Stallone, No. 87-0592 WDKGx, 1989 WL 206431, at *6 9 (C.D. Cal. 1989). 10 The first case to suggest a test for whether or not
11 characters can be copyrighted, Warner Bros. Pictures, 12 Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 216 F.2d 13 945 (9th Cir. 1954), stated that literary characters 14 are entitled to copyright protection if the character 15 constitutes the story being told; however, if the 16 character is only the chessman in the game of telling 17 the story he is not entitled to copyright protection. 18 Id. 19 Subsequent cases appeared to cast doubt on this In particular, in Walt Disney Productions. v.
20 test.
21 Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751, 755 (9th Cir. 1978), which 22 involved a claim for copyright infringement of Walt 23 Disneys cartoon characters based on the defendants 24 copying of the characters from Disneys comic books, 25 the Court stated that while many literary characters 26 may embody little more than an unprotected idea, a 27 comic book character, which has physical as well as 28 conceptual qualities, is more likely to contain some
34
1 unique elements of expression. 2 citations omitted).
Id. (internal
The court ultimately concluded
3 that [b]ecause comic book characters . . . are 4 distinguishable from literary characters, the Warner 5 Brothers language does not preclude protection of 6 Disneys characters. 7 Id.
The next Ninth Circuit case to address the issue,
8 Rice v. Fox Broadcasting Co., 330 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 9 2003), articulated another standard known as the 10 character delineation test. The Ninth Circuit
11 explained that characters that are especially 12 distinctive or the story being told receive 13 protection apart from the copyrighted work. Rice v.
14 Fox Broad. Co., 330 F.3d 1170, 1175 (9th Cir. 2003) 15 (citing Olson, 855 F.2d at 1452; Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 16 Inc., 900 F. Supp. at 129596))(emphasis added). 17 the especially distinctive standard for 18 copyrightability, the court noted that [c]haracters 19 that have received copyright protection have displayed 20 consistent, widely identifiable traits. Id. (citing As to
21 Toho Co. v. William Morrow & Co., 33 F. Supp. 2d 1206, 22 1215 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (Godzilla); Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer,
23 Inc., 900 F. Supp. at 1297 (James Bond); Anderson, 1989 24 WL 206431, at *7 (Rocky Balboa)). 25 The character delineation standard was applied in a
26 recent opinion, where the Ninth Circuit stated that 27 cartoon characters have physical as well as conceptual 28 qualities, [and are] more likely to contain some unique
35
1 elements of expression.
Halicki, 547 F.3d at 1223 Halicki did not
2 (citing Air Pirates, 581 F.2d at 755.)
3 clarify whether the story being told or the character 4 delineation test as articulated in Air Pirates and Rice 5 is the applicable test. However, the opinion suggests
6 that a character is subject to copyright protection in 7 the Ninth Circuit if it satisfies either of the two 8 recognized standards. 9 In Halicki, the Ninth Circuit reviewed, but did not
10 resolve, whether or not the character Eleanor, a car 11 that appeared as a 1971 Fastback Ford Mustang in the 12 1974 film, Gone in 60 Seconds, was entitled to 13 copyright protection. 547 F.3d at 1217-18. In 2000,
14 Walt Disney Productions released a remake of Gone in 60 15 Seconds that featured the Eleanor vehicle, but this 16 time the vehicle was a 1967 Shelby GT-500. Id. The
17 Ninth Circuit in Halicki noted that the Eleanor 18 character can be seen as more akin to a comic book 19 character than a literary character. Id. at 1225.
20 Moreover, Eleanor displays consistent, widely 21 identifiable traits because in both films, the 22 characters in the movie have difficulty stealing the 23 Eleanor car. Id. at 1225. The Ninth Circuit remanded
24 to the district court to determine whether Eleanors 25 physical and conceptual qualities, and unique elements 26 of expression qualify Eleanor for copyright protection. 27 Id. at 1225. 28 Here, the Court finds that there is no genuine
36
1 issue of material fact as to whether the Batmobile is 2 sufficiently delineated to constitute a character 3 entitled to copyright protection. Defendant repeatedly
4 argues that the Batmobile is not a character because it 5 is a car. This argument lacks merit as the central
6 question in Halicki is not whether the character is 7 an object, but rather whether the character conveys a 8 set of distinct characteristics.4 Plaintiffs briefing
9 on this issue is conclusory and superficial, but it is 10 clear based on the undisputed facts that the Batmobile 11 is a copyrightable character. 12 It is undeniable that the Batmobile is a world-
13 famous conveyance in the Batman franchise, exhibiting a 14 series of readily identifiable and distinguishing 15 traits. The Batmobile is known by one consistent name It
16 that identifies it as Batmans personal vehicle. 17 18

4
19 object is also misplaced in light of the fact that at least one other court has afforded copyright protection to an inanimate 20 object belonging to a specific movie character. In New Line 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Defendants focus on whether the Batmobile is an inanimate
21 Cinema Corp. v. Russ Berrie & Co.,, 161 F.Supp. 2d 293 (S.D.N.Y.
2001), the court found that an inanimate object associated with a fictional character was entitled to copyright protection. In New Line Cinema, a toy distributor sold a toy glove that looked like the glove worn by Freddy Kreuger of the Nightmare on Elm Street motion pictures. New Line Cinema Corp., 161 F. Supp. 2d at 294. The court held that the glove was entitled to copyright protection based on New Lines copyright protection in the Freddy Krueger character because [c]opyright protection is extended to the component part of the character which significantly aids in identifying the character. Id. at 302 (citing New Line Cinema Corp. v. Easter Unlimited, Inc., 17 U.S.P.Q.2d 1631, 1633 (E.D.N.Y. 1989); Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd., 604 F.2d 200, 204 (2d Cir. 1979)). 37
1 also displays consistent physical traits.
The
2 Batmobile, in its various incarnations, is a highly3 interactive vehicle, equipped with high-tech gadgets 4 and weaponry used to aid Batman in fighting crime. 5 Even though the Batmobile is not identical in every 6 comic book, film, or television show, it is still 7 widely recognizable because it often contains bat-like 8 motifs, such as a bat-faced grill or bat-shaped 9 tailfins in the rear of the car, and it is almost 10 always jet black. 11 25, at 500. See, e.g., Joint Stipulation, Ex.
The 1989 and 1966 Batmobile iterations In fact, the
12 also display these physical qualities.
13 particular design of the Batmobile often reflects the 14 car models of the time for example, the Batmobile 15 from the comic book Batman No. 5, which was released in 16 1941, has the shape of a 1940s Ford automobile, but 17 contains a bat hood ornament and tailfins resembling 18 a bats wings. Regardless of the evolving design of
19 the Batmobile, it retains distinctive characteristics. 20 Other than its physical features, the Batmobile is
21 depicted as being swift, cunning, strong and elusive. 22 For example, in the comic book Batman #5, the Batmobile 23 leaps away and tears up the street like a cyclone. 24 Joint Stip., Ex. 2, at 75. In the same comic book, the
25 Batmobile is analogized to an impatient steed 26 straining at the reigns, shivering as its super27 charged motor throbs with energy . . . and an instant 28 later it tears after the fleeing hoodlums.
38
Id. at 76.
1 The Batmobile participates in various chases and is 2 deployed to combat Batmans enemies. 3 portray the Batmobile as a superhero. The comic books The Batmobile is
4 central to Batmans ability to fight crime and appears 5 as Batmans sidekick, if not an extension of Batmans 6 own persona. 7 This case is analogous to Toho Co., Ltd. v. William
8 Morrow and Co., Inc., 33 F.Supp. 2d 1206, 1215 (C.D. 9 Cal. 1998), which involved the Godzilla character, a 10 giant lizard featured in action films. Although
11 Godzilla assumed many shapes and personalities in the 12 various Godzilla films, the Court found that Godzilla 13 has developed a constant set of traits that distinguish 14 him/her/it from other fictional characters, meriting 15 it copyright protection. 16 Id.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that the
17 Batmobile is a character entitled to copyright 18 protection. 19 As further discussed below, Defendant does not deny Defendants
20 that he has copied the Batmobile vehicles.
21 copying of the two-dimensional Batmobile character, 22 which appeared in the 1989 film, the 1966 television 23 series, and the comic books, into three-dimensional 24 forms is copyright infringement. It is, of course,
25 fundamental that copyright in a work protects against 26 unauthorized copying, not only in the original medium 27 in which the work was produced, but also in any other 28 medium as well. 1-2 Nimmer on Copyright 2.08
39
1 (2008).
[M]aking decisions that enable one to
2 reproduce or transform an already existing work into 3 another medium or dimension though perhaps quite 4 difficult and intricate decisions is not enough to 5 constitute the contribution of something recognizably 6 his own. Entmt Research Grp., Inc. v. Genesis
7 Creative Grp., Inc., 122 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 8 1997) (citing Nimmer 2.08); see also Twentieth 9 Century-Fox Film Corp. v. MCA, Inc., 715 F.2d 1327, 10 1329 n.4 (9th Cir. 1983) (Where defendants work is 11 adapted for us in a medium different than that of 12 plaintiffs, the test for infringement is the same.); 13 Universal Studios, Inc. v. J.A.R. Sales, Inc., 216 14 U.S.P.Q. 679, 681, 683 (C.D. Cal. 1982) (Protection 15 extends to expressions of that character [E.T.] not 16 only in motion pictures, but in other media as well, 17 including three-dimensional expressions such as dolls 18 and other forms of sculpture. . . . The defendants 19 molded plastic doll is substantially similar to the 20 physical expression of the motion picture character 21 E.T. in that the defendants doll replicates [E.T.s] 22 oddly-shaped head and facial features, squat torso, 23 long thin arms, and hunched-over posture. . . . The 24 defendants molded-plastic doll and the motion picture 25 character E.T. also portray the same mood of 26 lovableness.). Therefore, Defendants manufacturing
27 of an unauthorized three-dimensional copy of a two28 dimensional comic book character, the Batmobile, still
40
1 constitutes copyright infringement. 2 3 4 5 4. The Batmobile Is A Work of Pictorial, Graphic, and Sculptural Art Entitled to Copyright Protection Alternatively, the Court also finds that the
6 Batmobile is a pictorial, graphic, and sculptural 7 work entitled to copyright protection under 17 U.S.C. 8 102. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Section 101 of the Copyright Act provides that
Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works include two-dimensional and three-dimensional works of fine, graphic, and applied art, photographs, prints and art reproductions, maps, globes, charts, diagrams, models, and technical drawings, including architectural plans. Such works shall include
works of artistic craftsmanship insofar as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned; the design of a useful article, as defined in this section, shall be considered a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work only if, and only to the extent that, such design incorporates pictorial, graphic, or sculptural features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article.
25 17 U.S.C. 101. 26 Courts have traditionally accorded copyright
27 protection to pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works 28 incorporated within a useful article, such as a carving
41
1 on the back of a chair or an engraving in a glass vase. 2 Leicester v. Warner Bros., 232 F.3d 1212, 1219 (9th 3 Cir. 2000) (citing William F. Patry, 1 Copyright Law 4 and Practice 274-76 (1994)). Only works that can be
5 identified separately from, and are capable of existing 6 independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the 7 [useful] article qualify for copyright protection. 8 Id. 9 This is what is known as separability. Id.
Courts have recognized two types of separability:
10 physical separability, and conceptual separability. 11 Id. Physical separability means that a pictorial,
12 graphic or sculptural feature incorporated into the 13 design of a useful article . . . can be physically 14 separated from the article without impairing the 15 articles utility and if, once separated, it can stand 16 alone as a work of art traditionally conceived. Id. 17 On the other hand, conceptual separability means that a 18 pictorial, graphic or sculptural feature can stand on 19 its own as a work of art traditionally conceived, and . 20 . . the useful article in which it is embodied would be 21 equally useful without it. 22 Id.
With respect to automobiles, the House Report for
23 the Copyright Act suggests that the statute was not 24 meant to protect merely the aesthetically pleasing 25 features of industrial objects: 26 27 28 [A]lthough the shape of an industrial product may be aesthetically satisfying and valuable, the Committees intention is not to offer it copyright
42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
protection under the bill. Unless the shape of an automobile, airplane, ladies dress, food processor, television set, or any other industrial product contains some element that, physically or conceptually, can be identified as separable from the utilitarian aspects of that article, the design would not be copyrighted under the bill. of separability and independence from the utilitarian aspects of the article does not depend upon the nature of the design that is, even if the appearance of an article is determined by aesthetic (as opposed to functional) considerations, only elements, if any, which can The test
be identified separately from the useful article as such are copyrightable.
16 H.R. No. 1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 55 (1976). 17 Defendant repeatedly argues that the Batmobile is
18 only a car and that the design of a car is not 19 protectable under copyright law, citing to the House 20 Report. However, as explained above, the Batmobile is
21 a character and exists in both two- and three22 dimensional forms. Its existence in three-dimensional
23 form is the consequence of the Batmobiles portrayal in 24 the 1989 live-motion film and 1966 television series. 25 Defendant did not copy the design of a mere car; he 26 copied the Batmobile character. The fact that the
27 unauthorized Batmobile replicas that Defendant 28 manufactured which are derivative works may be
43
1 useful articles is irrelevant.
A derivative work can
2 still infringe the underlying copyrighted work even if 3 the derivative work is not independently entitled to 4 copyright protection. Lewis v. Gallob Toys, Inc. v.
5 Nintendo of Am., Inc., 964 F.2d 965, 968 (9th Cir. 6 1992) (A derivative work must be fixed to be protected 7 under the Act, but not to infringe.) (citing 17 U.S.C. 8 102)); Lone Ranger Television, Inc., 740 F.2d at 7229 23 (It makes no difference that the derivation may not 10 satisfy certain requirements for statutory copyright 11 registration itself.); Entmt Research Grp., Inc., 122 12 F.3d at 1218 (three-dimensional inflatable costumes 13 based on copyrighted cartoon characters were not 14 copyrightable). 15 Nevertheless, the Batmobile in its three-
16 dimensional form as it appeared in the 1989 and 1966 17 works is still copyrightable under Section 102. The
18 difficulty with this case is in determining whether or 19 not the Batmobile is an automobile and thus a useful 20 article that is not entitled to copyright protection 21 except for the conceptually separable elements, or 22 something else entirely. In all of the fictional
23 works, the Batmobile is deployed as Batmans mode of 24 transportation. However, the Batmobile is entirely The
25 distinguishable from an ordinary automobile. 26 Batmobile is a fictional character tied to the 27 fictional Batman character.
The Batmobile is a crime
28 fighting weapon and used to display the Batman persona.

44
1 The Batmobile, and the so-called functional elements 2 associated with it, is not a useful object in the real 3 world, and incorporates fantasy elements that do not 4 appear on real-world vehicles. The functional
5 elements e.g., the fictional torpedo launchers, the 6 Bat-scope, and anti-fire systems are only 7 functional to the extent that they helped Batman 8 fight crime in the fictional Batman television series 9 and movies. 10 construct. Thus, the Batmobiles usefulness is a Additionally, Defendants argument that
11 Batman is merely a car wholly fails to capture the 12 creativity and fantastical elements that stand apart 13 from the fact that the Batmobile also happens to look 14 like a car. 15 Nonetheless, the design elements of the two
16 Batmobiles at issue here are conceptually separable 17 from their underlying car. In particular, the 1989
18 Batmobiles entire frame, consisting of the rear 19 exaggerated, sculpted bat-fin and the mandibular front, 20 is an artistic feature that can stand on its own 21 without the underlying vehicle. The underlying vehicle
22 would still be a car without the exaggerated bat 23 features. Further, the Batmobiles wheels each contain
24 a hubcap containing a bat sculpted from metal, which 25 can literally stand on its own without the underlying 26 wheel. 27 Similarly, the 1966 Batmobile contains features
28 that are conceptually separable from the underlying

45
1 vehicle.
For example, the doors have imprinted upon The car is painted in a distinct
2 them red bat logos.
3 black and red color scheme, where the outline of the 4 car is red. See Knitwaves, Inc. v. Lollytogs Ltd., 71
5 F.3d 996, 1002 (2d Cir. 1995) (the color pattern of 6 useful article entitled to copyright protection). 7 wheels have hubcaps containing a bat sculpted from 8 metal. The rear of the vehicle is scalloped and These elements are Further, The
9 intended to look like bat wings.
10 conceptually separable from the car itself.
11 the interior of the Batmobile contains original 12 features such as the Bat Scope and the Bat Ray that 13 are subject to copyright protection, as are the names 14 for these features. See 17 U.S.C. 102 (literary The interior
15 elements are protected under copyright). 16 of the car also has bat-shaped phone.
In this
17 instance, while the phone itself is a utilitarian 18 feature, the shape of the phone does not itself have a 19 function and merely displays the figure of a bat. 20 As such, all of the features that distinguish the
21 Batmobile from any other car the fantastical elements 22 that feature bat design, such as the bat tailfin and 23 the various gadgetry that identify the vehicle as the 24 Batmobile are protectable elements. 25 Defendants argument that extending copyright
26 protection to the Batmobile will open the door for the 27 copyrighting of other automobiles. 28 Batmobile is sui generis. However, the
The unique elements that

46
1 Plaintiff seeks to protect make the Batmobile the 2 famous vehicle that it is. Thus, the Court finds that
3 the Batmobile is subject to copyright protection. 4 5 6 5. Defendant Has Copied the 1989 and 1966
Batmobiles Defendant does not deny that he has reproduced and
7 distributed replicas of the 1966 and 1989 Batmobiles. 8 The only argument that he makes is that he does not 9 include some features in his replicas that were in the 10 original Batmobiles. However, when comparing the
11 replica cars with the Batmobile vehicles that appeared 12 in the television film and movie, his 1966 and 1989 13 Batmobile replicas appear substantially the same as the 14 original Batmobiles. In particular, his replicas for
15 the 1989 Batmobile contain the same exaggerated bat 16 fin, mandibular front, and hubcaps containing the bat 17 symbol. Defendants replicas of the 1966 Batmobile
18 also has the same color scheme, the same bat tail, and 19 the same bat symbol on the doors and wheels. The
20 interior of the 1966 Batmobile contains labels for many 21 of the features that appeared in the original 1966 22 Batmobile, including the Bat-Ray and Bat-Scope. 23 Further, Defendant does not dispute that he had Thus,
24 access to the two 1966 and 1989 Batmobiles.
25 there is no genuine dispute of fact as to whether or 26 not Defendants activities constitute copying under 27 the requirements for copyright infringement. 28 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS
47
1 Plaintiffs Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to 2 copyright infringement and DENIES Defendants Motion. 3 E. Defendants Laches Defense 4 Defendant has asserted laches as a defense to Laches
5 Plaintiffs trademark and copyright claims.
6 requires a showing that (1) Plaintiffs delay in filing 7 suit was unreasonable, and (2) Defendant would suffer 8 prejudice caused by the delay if the suit were to 9 continue. Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Defendant Id. A party
10 Inc., 304 F.3d 829, 838 (9th Cir. 2002). 11 bears the burden of demonstrating laches.
12 asserting laches must show that it suffered prejudice 13 as a result of the plaintiffs unreasonable delay in 14 filing suit. Id. However, the defense of laches is
15 barred where defendants purposefully committed the 16 infringing conduct. Evergreen Safety Council v. RSA
17 Network, Inc., 697 F.3d 1221, 1228 (9th Cir. 2012). 18 This good-faith component of the laches doctrine is 19 part of the fundamental principle that he who comes 20 into equity must come with clean hands. Danjaq LLC v.
21 Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942, 956 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing 22 Hermes Intl v. Lederer de Paris Fifth Ave., Inc., 219 23 F.3d 104, 107 (2d Cir. 2000)). 24 The limitations period for laches starts from the
25 time the plaintiff knew or should have known about its 26 potential cause of action. Tillamook Cnty. Smoker,
27 Inc. v. Tillamook Cnty. Creamery Assoc., 465 F.3d 1102 28 (9th Cir. 2006). While laches and the statute of
48
1 limitations are distinct defenses, a laches 2 determination is made with reference to the limitations 3 period for the analogous action at law. If the
4 plaintiff filed suit within the analogous limitations 5 period, the strong presumption is that laches is 6 inapplicable. 7 835-36. Jarrow Formulas, Inc., 304 F.3d at
If suit is filed outside of the analogous
8 limitations period, courts often have presumed that 9 laches is applicable. 10 Id.
As to Plaintiffs trademark infringement claim, the
11 Lanham Act contains no explicit statute of limitations. 12 Id. at 836. When a federal statute lacks a specific
13 statute of limitations, courts may borrow the 14 limitations period from the most closely analogous 15 action under state law. Id. As trademark infringement
16 is a continuing wrong, the statute of limitations 17 bars only monetary relief for the period outside the 18 statute of limitations. Id. However, Plaintiff is
19 free to pursue monetary and equitable relief for the 20 time within the limitations period. Id. The
21 presumption of laches is triggered if any part of the 22 claimed wrongful conduct occurred beyond the 23 limitations period. 24 Id.
The most closely analogous state-law limitations
25 period for Plaintiffs claims under the Lanham Act are 26 the four-year periods for state trademark infringement 27 and unfair competition claims, set forth under Cal. 28 Code Civ. Proc. 343 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
49
1 17208.
Internet Specialties W., Inc. v.
2 Milon-DiGiorgio Enters., Inc., 559 F.3d 985, 999 (9th 3 Cir. 2009). The statute of limitations for copyright Petrella v.
4 claims in civil cases is three years.
5 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 695 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 6 2012). 7 The Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of
8 fact with respect to when Plaintiff knew or had reason 9 to know about the infringement of their copyrights and 10 trademarks. Defendant presents evidence showing that
11 an attorney from Warner Bros. called him in 2003, 12 during which the attorney revealed that she saw a 13 photograph of his garage over the Internet. The garage
14 contained a number of 1966 Batmobile replicas and a 15 shell for a 1989 Batmobile replica. Although Warner
16 Bros. is not a party in this Action, the Parties stated 17 at the hearing that Warner Bros. is an affiliate of 18 Plaintiff. The Parties also indicated at the hearing
19 that Warner Bros. enforces Plaintiffs intellectual 20 property. A reasonable fact finder could find that
21 this shows that Plaintiff could have become aware of 22 Defendants activities in 2003. Further, Plaintiffs
23 Vice President and Deputy Counsel for Intellectual 24 Property testified that Plaintiff was aware that 25 Defendant was manufacturing the Batboat sometime before 26 2006. A reasonable fact-finder could conclude that
27 Plaintiff should have been aware of Defendants 28 infringing activities as early as 2003.
50
This Action
1 was filed in 2011.
On summary judgment, the Court
2 construes the evidence in favor of the non-moving 3 party. As the alleged wrongful acts might have
4 occurred outside the three- and four-year statute of 5 limitations period, laches is presumed. 6 Further, assuming there was delay on the part of
7 Plaintiff, it is unclear whether this delay was 8 reasonable. Specifically, the Parties presented
9 conflicting evidence as to whether or not Plaintiff was 10 diligent in enforcing its copyrights and trademarks. 11 Defendant admitted that he received a few take-down 12 notices regarding his postings on eBay, where he 13 offered his replica vehicles. According to Plaintiff,
14 it requested these take-down notices from eBay, but 15 Plaintiff was unclear as to when these takedown notices 16 occurred and how many notices were issued. 17 Nonetheless, the Court finds that Defendant
18 willfully infringed upon Plaintiffs trademarks. 19 Defendant admitted his knowledge of the Batman property 20 and the various Bat emblems and symbols used with them, 21 and does not dispute that he intentionally copied the 22 designs of the 1989 and 1966 Batmobile vehicles, which 23 included Plaintiffs Batman-related trademarks. He
24 also intentionally referred to his replicas as the 25 Batmobile, a word mark that Plaintiff owns. Thus,
26 Defendant intentionally copied Plaintiffs trademarks, 27 including the Batmobile and Batman word mark and 28 symbols, so as to associate his products with the
51
1 Batman films and television show.
Defendants bad
2 faith deprives him from asserting laches as a defense 3 to Plaintiffs trademark claim. See Bd. of Supervisors
4 of LA State Univ. v. Smack Apparel Co., 438 F. Supp. 2d 5 653, 663 (E.D. La. 2006), affd sub nom., Bd. of 6 Supervisors for LA State Univ. Agric. & Mech. Coll. v. 7 Smack Apparel Co., 550 F.3d 465 (5th Cir. 2008). For
8 these reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion, and 9 DENIES Defendants Motion as to Defendants laches 10 defense to Plaintiffs trademark infringement claim. 11 As to Plaintiffs copyright claim, however,
12 Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendants conduct 13 constitutes willful infringement. For the willful
14 infringement exception to apply to Defendants laches 15 defense, Plaintiff has to demonstrate that Defendants 16 conduct occurred with knowledge that [his] conduct 17 constitutes copyright infringement. 18 at 958. Danjaq, 263 F.3d
Generally, a determination as to willfulness
19 requires an assessment of a partys state of mind, a 20 factual issue that is not usually susceptible to 21 summary judgment. Frank Music Corp. v.
22 MetroGoldwynMayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505, 515 (9th Cir. 23 1985). Plaintiff has not demonstrated that Defendant
24 was aware that his conduct of copying the Batmobile 25 vehicles constituted copyright infringement. The
26 record suggests that Defendant believed that only a 27 design patent protected the 1989 Batmobile from 28 infringement. Defendant testified that he waited until
52
1 the design patent expired before selling his replica 2 cars. Defendant also testified that he was never
3 informed that Plaintiff was asserting copyright 4 ownership to the Batmobile vehicles at issue here. 5 Based on these disputes of fact, the Court cannot 6 determine as a matter of law that Defendants conduct 7 constituted deliberate infringement. Because there is
8 also a genuine dispute as to when Plaintiff knew or 9 should have known about Defendants infringement, the 10 Court DENIES both Plaintiff and Defendants Motions as 11 to Defendants laches defense on the copyright claim. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ///
53
1 2
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in Part
3 and DENIES in Part Plaintiffs Motion for Partial 4 Summary Judgment. The Court DENIES Defendants Motion
5 for Partial Summary Judgment. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: February 7, 2013 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

54
HONORABLE RONALD S.W. LEW Senior, U.S. District Court Judge

DC Comics V Mark Towle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DC Comics V Mark Towle

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DC Comics V Mark Towle

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 54 Page ID #:2064

On January 30, 2013, Defendant Mark Towles Motion

26 Plaintiffs Motion. 27 Motion. 28 ///

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 54 Page ID #:2065

I. BACKGROUND This Action stems from a Complaint filed by

Plaintiff owns the copyright registrations to Id. 12.

26 the Batman comic books. 27

In 1965, Plaintiffs predecessor, National

28 Periodical, licensed its Batman literary property to

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 54 Page ID #:2066

Plaintiff also licensed its Batman literary In 1979, Plaintiff

16 property to produce motion films.

Plaintiff also owns a number of Batman-related

28 trademarks, including, the BATMOBILE wordmark, the BAT

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 54 Page ID #:2067

Defendant is the owner, operator, and manager of a

Defendant has been producing and selling replica

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 5 of 54 Page ID #:2068

1 53. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 856045 858860 828412 2457655 1652640 839561 1221720 1587507 25 28 21 41 41 16 16 9

Bat Rep II BATMAN (Word Mark)

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 6 of 54 Page ID #:2069

4246497 1124961 1179342 Serial No. 85143617

BATMOBILE (Word Mark)

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 7 of 54 Page ID #:2070

Procedural History On May 6, 2011, Plaintiff filed its Complaint

14 Court denied the motion on January 26, 2012 [21].

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 8 of 54 Page ID #:2071

II. LEGAL STANDARD Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no

A genuine issue is one in which the evidence is

The non-moving party is required by

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 9 of 54 Page ID #:2072

6 filed over forty evidentiary objections.

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 10 of 54 Page ID #:2073

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 11 of 54 Page ID #:2074

See Sanders v. Parker Drilling Co., 911

Plaintiff owns the Bat Emblem mark, the Bat

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 12 of 54 Page ID #:2075

17 contest Plaintiffs trademark claim.

The vehicle doors of Defendants

The fire extinguisher

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 13 of 54 Page ID #:2076

Next, the Court finds that Defendants unauthorized

In the similarity analysis: (1) Marks should

26 Inc., 546 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1052 (D. Or. 2008) (citing 27 28

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 14 of 54 Page ID #:2077

Further, Defendant also has used various bat

For example, the bat symbol

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 15 of 54 Page ID #:2078

Plaintiffs Marks Bat Emblem

Bat Emblem (Batman Begins)

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 16 of 54 Page ID #:2079

6 U.S. 763, 768 (1992).

The marks at issue here include a series of design

The terms BATMOBILE and BATMAN are fanciful

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 17 of 54 Page ID #:2080

1 television programs. 2 Third, with regard to the issue of actual

As revealed at the hearing on the present This

25 favors a finding of likelihood of confusion.

Case 2:11-cv-03934-RSWL-OP Document 74 Filed 02/07/13 Page 18 of 54 Page ID #:2081