To the surprise of no-one, Disney lawyers are pushing back against the legal attempt by lawyers for Stan Lee Media to claim ownership of the various characters Lee created for Marvel Comics through a ridiculously complicated reasoning:
Stan Lee Media has sued Marvel Entertainment multiple times without success in an effort to lay claim to the famous characters that its namesake had a hand in creating. In the latest chapter, Stan Lee Media sued Disney, which purchased Marvel in 2009, in a Colorado federal court.
Disney “is a holding company and as such does not conduct business in Colorado or anywhere else,” the company said in a motion to dismiss the suit. “There is no conceivable basis on which the plaintiff can state a viable copyright claim against (the Walt Disney Co.) in this court or, for that matter, any other.”
Among other things, Disney says that Stan Lee Media failed even to specify to which works it claims to own the copyright, instead referring “vaguely” to “comicbook characters…that (Lee) had previously created or would create.”
December 4th, 2012 at 10:09 am
Not really that ridiculous– this is just typical “pleadings stage” posturing. This seems like a pretty standard motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (or a state law equivalent) that has the effect of saying, “We are not even acknoweldging this suit because you have no right to bring it; and even if you CAN bring it, you’ve stated it so poorly that you’ve effectively said nothing.”
This is done so that Disney can get rid of the suit without ever actually answering the Complaint, and is commonplace when a Plaintiff sues the wrong business entity or brings claims which are inadequately pled.
Here, apparently “the Walt Disney Co.” is the wrong entity to sue if you want to sue “Disney,” so if the Complaint is dismissed on these grounds, Stan Lee Media will likely just figure out the proper entity and re-file. On the other hand, if the Court finds that “Walt Disney Co.” is the proper party, Disney is also arguing that it’s not enough for SLM to just lay a general claim to unidentified “comicbook characters.” Depending on the Court’s pleading rules, such a broad and vague allegation can be insufficient to put Disney/Marvel on notice of what characters copyrights are actually being claimed.
(FTR: I am a corporate litigation attorney who runs into these issues all the time).
December 4th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
worst article ever. bad reporting.
December 5th, 2012 at 12:17 am
The company said in a motion to dismiss the suit.
December 5th, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Disney “does not conduct business in Colorado or anywhere else.”
That’s nowhere even close to being true. I mean, there’s at least three Disney Store outlets near Denver, CO, and that’s a business arrangement with The Children’s Place.
Oh, and those studios in California, those parks in California and Florida, that broadcast network based in New York, that sports cable network based in Connecticut, that comic publisher based in New York, and a few other outlets using their holdings around the world, hardly “not anywhere else.”
Still a stupid lawsuit.
December 6th, 2012 at 11:10 am
They didn’t say that “Disney” does not conduct business anywhere, they said that “Walt Disney Co.” is just a holding company that does not do business. From a legal standpoint, you can’t sue the holding company that’s not doing business. It’s likely that SLM has to go back to the drawing board and sue the correct entity.