DreamWorks must face suit over ‘Kung Fu Panda’ intellectual property claims
April 5, 2013 11:51 am Leave your thoughts
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that DreamWorks Animation will face an intellectual property lawsuit over the use of the title character in its "Kung Fu Panda" films. According to the suit, Boston artist Jayme Gordon first created the concept of a "Kung Fu panda" in the 1990s and DreamWorks stole his ideas. The company has since attempted to get the case dismissed – an endeavor that, with the latest ruling, has fallen short.
In his initial arguments for the case back in February 2011, Gordon stated that he was first to come up with the idea of a Kung Fu fighting panda and registered the copyright for it in 2000, years prior to release of the DreamWorks film "Kung Fu Panda" in 2008. He also claims to have sold clothing and other merchandise featuring his concept of the character during the 90s at multiple retail outlets. He has also pointed out that his panda was displayed on his website, LuckyLizard.com.
In his argument, Gordon believes that DreamWorks unlawfully used "characters, character depictions, character personality traits, illustrations, expression, settings, story elements, plot and sequences of events that are unlawful copies and derivatives" from his copyright "Kung Fu Panda Power" works. He has since asked the company to pay him for monetary damages, legal fees and litigation costs. He has also asked for the studio to acknowledge him as the creator of "Kung Fu Panda" products.
According to court documents, Gordon's character was "a Kung Fu fighting giant panda who likes to eat; his companion, a rare small red panda who also is a Kung Fu fighter; and a Kung Fu fighting super group known as the "Five Fists of Fury" that consists of a tiger, crane, mantis, monkey and a venomless snake," many of which are qualities used in the films.
Companies looking to make sure their intellectual property is protected are encouraged to seek out a Phoenix small business attorney.
Categorised in: Entertainment Law
This post was written by