battletech urban warfare prototype decisions

BATTLETECH URBAN WARFARE PROTOTYPE DECISIONS TRIAL
BATTLETECH URBAN WARFARE PROTOTYPE DECISIONS LICENSE
BATTLETECH URBAN WARFARE PROTOTYPE DECISIONS SERIES

BATTLETECH URBAN WARFARE PROTOTYPE DECISIONS TRIAL

Prior to the commencement of trial, this Court, after receiving input from the parties, imposed time limitations for the trial of this case and divided the trial into four phases: Phase I dealt with a waiver issue Phase II focused on the validity and identification of FASA's alleged copyright and trade dress rights Phase III focused on all infringement and liability issues and Phase IV was to focus on damages. These latter counts proceeded to trial and are addressed in this opinion. FASA I granted Playmates' motion for summary judgment as to Count II (common law unfair competition), Counts VII and VIII (anti-dilution) and Count IX (tortious interference) and denied the motion as to Count I (Lanham Act unfair competition), Counts III and IV (copyright infringement) and Counts V and VI (trademark infringement). In a previous opinion, this Court addressed Playmates' motion for summary judgment and outlined many of the legal standards that the Court has applied in this bench trial.

BATTLETECH URBAN WARFARE PROTOTYPE DECISIONS SERIES

('Playmates') violated FASA's copyright and trademark rights to a series of robot-like battlefield characters, which are used in a futuristic setting known as BATTLETECH, when Playmates introduced a series of futuristic robot-like toys known as EXO-SQUAD. Plaintiffs FASA Corporation and Virtual World Entertainment (collectively 'FASA') claim that defendant Playmates Toys, Inc. This case, however, involves a serious business dispute about games and toys. Toys and games are usually welcome diversions to the serious problems that too often confront our daily lives. Its 1993 Toy Catalog Did Not Constitute Unfair Competition. Playmates' Inclusion Of A Picture Of Its Planned Heavy Attack E-Frame In There Is A Likelihood Of Confusion About The Source of EXO-SQUAD FASA Failed To Establish By A Preponderance Of The Evidence That Protectible Copyright Interests Were Copied By Playmates. FASA Failed To Establish By A Preponderance Of The Evidence That Its Specific, Non-Trivial Design Features Distinguish EXO-SQUAD FromīATTLETECH.

The Development Of EXO-SQUAD Toys Draws Inspiration From Third-Partyĭesigns And Designs And Properties Other Than BATTLETECH 1163 The Heavy Attack E-Frame Prototypes Of EXO-SQUAD Toys Were IndependentlyĬreated. Playmates' Maggie Weston Repair Light Attack E-Frame Is Not Substantially

Playmates' Alec DeLeon E-Frame Is Not Substantially Similar To FASA'sĭaishi Design. Playmates' Alec DeLeon E-Frame Is Not Substantially Similar To FASA's Playmates' General Shiva Light Attack E-Frame Is Not Substantially Playmates' Livanus Light Attack E-Frame Is Not Substantially Similar ToįASA's Bushwacker Design. Playmates' Livanus Light Attack E-Frame Is Not Substantially Similar ToįASA's Black Hawk Design. Playmates' Marsala Light Attack E-Frame Toy Is Not Substantially Similar Playmates' Heavy Attack E-Frame Prototype Is Not Substantially Similar Playmates' Survey Evidence Established A Lack of Any Trade DressĬonfusion.

BATTLETECH URBAN WARFARE PROTOTYPE DECISIONS LICENSE

FASA's Efforts To License Its BATTLETECH Designs To Tyco. The Development Of The EXO-SQUAD Toy Line By Playmates. FASA Has Established That It Has Protectible Trade Dress Rights. FASA Has Established Original Expressions Of Ideas That Are Protectedīy The Copyright Act. Originality and Distinctiveness of the BATTLETECH Property. Recognition of BATTLETECH Among the Relevant Consumers. Samuels, Samuels & Samuels, Los Angeles, CA, for defendant. August and Maxine Lans Retsky, Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson, Chicago, IL, Jack D. Ksander and Catherine Van Horn, Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal, Chicago, IL, for plaintiffs. FASA CORPORATION and Virtual World Entertainment, Plaintiffs,

Battletech urban warfare prototype decisions