United States: Stephen Slesinger Estopped From Challenging Disney’s Ownership Of Winnie-The-Pooh Trademarks

In Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enterprises, Inc., No. 11-1593 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2012), the Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB's dismissal of Stephen Slesinger, Inc.'s ("Slesinger") challenges, in twelve opposition and cancellation proceedings filed at the TTAB, to the trademark rights related to A.A. Milne's literary work featuring Winnie-the-Pooh and other characters owned by Disney Enterprises, Inc. ("Disney").  The Court found that the TTAB correctly ruled that the proceedings were barred by collateral estoppel.

For decades, Slesinger and Disney have disputed the Winnie-the-Pooh rights in federal courts and at the TTAB.  In 1930, A.A. Milne transferred to Stephen Slesinger exclusive merchandising and other rights based on those works in the United States and Canada.  In 1961, Slesinger exclusively "assigned, granted, and set over to" Walt Disney Productions the rights in the 1930 agreement with A.A. Milne.  Slip op. at 3 (citation omitted).  In 1983, Slesinger acknowledged its transfer and assignment of "rights it had acquired from A.A. Milne to Disney by agreement dated 14 June 1961."  Id. (citation omitted).  The 1983 agreement then revoked the prior agreements and gave Slesinger "all of the rights in the work which were transferred to [Slesinger] in 1930 and amended from time to time," but also transferred back to Disney those and "further" rights.  Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted). 

While the 1983 agreement sought to resolve the parties' previous disputes and clarify their contractual obligations, the parties disagreed about the interpretation of that agreement.  Slesinger contended that it retained rights in the Winnie-the-Pooh works, while Disney maintained that Slesinger assigned all rights to Disney.

In 1991, Slesinger brought an action in Los Angeles Superior Court alleging that Disney had breached the 1983 agreement and had underpaid royalties to Slesinger.  In the California state court case, Slesinger acknowledged that the 1983 agreement "regranted, licensed and assigned all rights acquired rights [sic] to Disney," and explained that "the grant of all 'further rights' in and to the Pooh Characters [in the 1983 agreement] is a catch-all designed to ensure that Slesinger was granting . . . all of the additional commercial exploitation rights Slesinger acquired that are not specifically mentioned in the 1983 Agreement."  Id. at 4 (first alteration in original) (citation omitted).  The state court ultimately dismissed Slesinger's breach-of-contract claim and the California Court of Appeals affirmed.

The parties' dispute over royalties, however, proceeded in the District Court for the Central District of California and, in 2006, Slesinger amended its district court claim to allege that Disney's exploitation of the Winnie-the-Pooh characters infringed Slesinger's trademarks and copyrights.  Based on Slesinger's admissions in the state court action that Disney's uses of the Winnie-the-Pooh characters were authorized, Disney moved to dismiss the claim.  Disney also argued that Slesinger had granted all of the rights it had in the characters to Disney and that Slesinger had retained no rights that Disney could infringe.

In 2009, the district court considered the parties' cross-motions for SJ based on the 1983 agreement and addressed the agreement's scope and judicial estoppel, among other things.  The district court noted that the parties' actions showed that the Winnie-the-Pooh rights were transferred to Disney in the 1983 agreement.  For example, between 1983 and 2006, Disney registered at least fifteen trademarks relating to those rights and, in 2004, Disney registered copyrights in forty-five works and renewed copyright registrations for another fourteen.  Slesinger, on the other hand, did not attempt to perfect or register trademarks or copyrights before asserting its district court infringement claims and did not object to Disney's registrations until 2006, when the state court dismissed Slesinger's claims for breach of contract.  The district court also found that because Slesinger could not specifically identify any retained right in the Winnie-the-Pooh works, the contracts did not permit any retention of rights and Slesinger had granted its acquired rights to Disney.  Thus, based on the parties' conduct and the "clear terms" of the agreements, the district court found that Slesinger "transferred all of its rights in the Pooh works to Disney, and may not now claim infringement of any retained rights."  Id. at 5 (citation omitted).

Finally, the district court found that Slesinger was estopped from arguing that it did not relinquish all the rights it received from A.A. Milne to Disney because that argument was inconsistent with statements made and positions taken in the state court action.  Specifically, in state court, Slesinger had insisted that Disney's uses of the works were derived from the Slesinger grants of "'all' rights to sound, word, picture representation, television, any representational device, similar or allied devices, videocassettes, promotion and advertising in all media, exploitation and licensing in all media."  Id. (citation omitted).

The dispute at the TTAB began in December 2006, with Slesinger attempting to cancel certain trademarks based on the Winnie-the-Pooh work.  Slesinger claimed that the 1983 agreement with Disney was a license, and did not grant Disney the right to register the marks.  Disney argued that the 1983 agreement assigned all of the Winnie-the-Pooh rights to Disney and moved to dismiss the TTAB proceedings.  The TTAB treated the motion as one for SJ, and found that collateral estoppel barred Slesinger's claims and granted judgment for Disney based on the district court's decision.

"With such a clear explanation that Slesinger conveyed all rights completely to Disney, it is immaterial that the district court used the terms 'transfer' and 'grant' rather than 'assignment.'  Moreover, it is the court's ultimate 'judgment that matters,' not the language used to discuss the court's rulings."  Slip op. at 9 (citation omitted).

On appeal, the Federal Circuit applied the four-part test for collateral estoppel set forth in Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United Staes, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2012):  "(1) a prior action presents an identical issue; (2) the prior action actually litigated and adjudged that issue; (3) the judgment in that prior action necessarily required determination of the identical issue; and (4) the prior action featured full representation of the estopped party."  Slesinger conceded that the case satisfied the first and fourth factors, and the Court agreed.  On the second factor, Slesinger argued that the district court did not properly consider the issue of the scope of the 1983 agreement, and it did not specifically declare that Slesinger "has no rights at all," implying that some rights might have survived the 1983 agreement.  Slip op. at 7.  Further, Slesinger argued that the district court's use of the term "retained rights" and its failure to use the word "assignment" (as opposed to "grant" or "transfer") implied that Disney licensed, rather than assigned, the rights.  The Court rejected these arguments, finding that the district court extensively analyzed the scope of the 1983 agreement based on the pleadings (Slesinger's Second Claim for Relief presented this issue) and the parties' briefing, which addressed the scope of the agreement as an assignment or license.  Thus, the Court found that the district court had litigated and decided the identical issue. 

The Court also agreed with the TTAB that the clear wording of the district court's order did not support Slesinger's contention that the decision was focused only on whether Disney's uses of the Winnie-the-Pooh works was authorized.  Rather, the Court found that the district court had determined that the 1983 agreement represented "a transfer from [Slesinger] to Disney of all of [its] interest in the Winnie-the-Pooh characters" and that Slesinger had transferred all of its rights in the Winnie-the-Pooh works to Disney, and could not claim infringement of any retained right.  Id. at 8 (citation omitted).   Further, the Court found that the conduct of the parties over fifty years (which the district court relied on in its decision) supported the finding that both parties treated the agreements as constituting a complete assignment and, thus, the record showed that the district court did not find that Slesinger retained any rights.  Rather, it had completely granted all of its rights to Disney as an assignment.  Finally, the district court ruled that it had "fully adjudicated all claims and counterclaims," and stated that "all of [Slesinger's] Counterclaims are dismissed on the merits and with prejudice."  Id. at 9 (alteration in original) (citation omitted).  Since Slesinger had specifically required an order directing that the TTAB correct Disney's Pooh-related trademark registrations to reflect Slesinger's name, the Court found that the district court had ruled on and denied that request.

Regarding the third element of the collateral estoppel test—which prevents the incidental or collateral determination of a nonessential issue from precluding reconsideration of that issue—the Court found that the district court's ruling was neither incidental nor collateral.  Rather, it directly addressed Slesinger's ownership interest in the Winnie-the-Pooh rights.  The Court found that the record showed that the evaluation of those rights was clearly an essential element of the judgment.  Specifically, the district court had to determine that issue before deciding whether Disney's uses of the Winnie-the-Pooh rights were infringing.  And it was essential to first determine whether Slesinger had any ownership rights in the marks before considering Slesinger's request to correct Disney's trademark registrations to Slesinger's name.

In sum, the Court found that the TTAB correctly applied collateral estoppel to prevent Slesinger from asserting a claim that its 1983 grant of rights to Disney was a license as opposed to an assignment.

Judge Reyna dissented, finding that the TTAB erred on two grounds:  (1) the district court did not actually decide the ownership issue, and (2) resolution of the ownership issue was not essential or necessary to the district court's decision on noninfringement.  Regarding point one, Judge Reyna noted that the district court did not explicitly state in clear, plain language whether the grant of rights, i.e., the transfer, was a license or an assignment.  Further, Judge Reyna found that the decision appeared to suggest that Slesinger retained some rights to the Winnie-the-Pooh trademarks, but that any rights retained were insufficient to support an infringement action.  This situation, according to Judge Reyna, was as suggestive of a license as an assignment and, accordingly, there was a reasonable doubt whether the district court had actually decided that the transfer was accomplished via an assignment.

Regarding point two, Judge Reyna found that the district court was not necessarily required to decide whether the transfer of the Winnie-the-Pooh trademarks was an assignment to resolve the issue of trademark infringement because an effective defense to a claim of trademark infringement can be made upon a showing of authorized use under a license.  Thus, Disney's ownership of the Winnie-the-Pooh trademarks was not the only rational basis on which a fact-finder could find noninfringement.  An equally rational basis would have been that Disney was authorized to use the marks under a license.  For these reasons, Judge Reyna concluded that the TTAB erred in applying the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Judges:  Rader (author), O'Malley, Reyna (dissenting)
[Appealed from TTAB]

Last Month at the Federal Circuit - January 2013

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
14 Nov 2018, Conference, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan is a Silver sponsor of the sixth annual World Intellectual Property Forum, hosted by Intellectual Professionals LLP. Finnegan partner Clare Cornell will present “Trademarks v. Company Names” and partner Patrick Coyne will present “Current Issues in U.S. Patent Law and Reform: The Next Wave”

16 Nov 2018, Seminar, Copenhagen, Denmark

Innovative companies, large and small, use patents to protect their key inventions. Obtaining valuable patents, however, requires skilled patent counsel and an in-depth knowledge of the legal requirements for securing claims that are strategically useful to your company.

17 Nov 2018, Conference, Washington, DC, United States

Finnegan partner Clare Cornell will present “Covert Trademark Use in the Internet: Licit or Illicit” at the Asian Patent Attorneys Association Conference.

 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions