Court: District Court, S.D. California; March 12, 2019; Federal District Court
Hon. Janis L. Sammartino, United States District Judge, addressed multiple motions in the case involving Plaintiff Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. These include the Plaintiff's motions to exclude testimony under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, for summary judgment, and to strike a declaration, alongside the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Following oral arguments on February 7, 2019, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiff's motions for summary judgment, exclusion, and to strike as moot.
The Plaintiff, as the owner of copyrights to works by Theodor S. Geisel (Dr. Seuss), oversees the publication of various titles, including "Oh, the Places You'll Go," "How the Grinch Stole Christmas," and "The Sneetches." These works are registered with the Copyright Office and remain under copyright. Despite Geisel's death in 1991, the Plaintiff actively manages a publishing program for reissues and new formats, and licenses additional works under the Dr. Seuss brand. The Dr. Seuss catalog is marketed to both children and adults, with specific titles targeting different age groups. The Plaintiff also engages in licensing for films, television, and merchandising related to Dr. Seuss works, reflecting its broader role in the entertainment industry.
In 2017, the Plaintiff was recognized as the leading licensed book brand by NPD. The Plaintiff engages in collaborations with various intellectual property holders to create new works that appeal to broader audiences, such as "The Wubbulous World of Dr. Seuss," a series developed with The Jim Henson Company, and a digital game, "Grinch Panda Pop," created with Jam City. Other collaborations include Dr. Seuss Funko figurines and a clothing line by Comme des Garçons. The Plaintiff receives numerous collaboration offers, which are selectively vetted before proceeding.
The Defendants, led by Mr. Gerrold and Mr. Hauman, initiated the project "Oh, the Places You'll Boldly Go!" in May 2016, initially considering various children's books for inspiration before settling on the Dr. Seuss theme. Mr. Templeton was brought on as the illustrator with instructions to emulate the Seuss style. Despite concerns about legal risks, the Defendants believed their project could qualify as a "parody" under fair use. Each Defendant characterized "Boldly" as a parody and a transformative work, asserting it wouldn’t compete with existing works. However, they admitted to copying elements from the Plaintiff's copyrighted works during its creation, with Mr. Hauman even scanning a copy of "Go!" for reference, and Mr. Gerrold later revising his text to align more closely with it.
Mr. Hauman developed a side-by-side comparison of Go! and Boldly to align the structure of the latter with the former. Mr. Templeton described his illustration process for Boldly, emphasizing that he aimed for his character positions to closely resemble those from the original source material, taking significant time to ensure the illustrations were nearly identical to Dr. Seuss's work. Mr. Hauman directed Mr. Templeton to closely mimic Go!, which he acknowledged doing to ensure the parody was recognizable, as the characters from Dr. Seuss would not be present.
Defendants included two disclaimers on the copyright page of Boldly, asserting it was a fair use work not associated with CBS Studio or Dr. Seuss Enterprises, and citing the Copyright Act's allowance for fair use. The copyright and trademarks for Boldly were attributed to Mr. Gerrold and Mr. Templeton.
In July 2016, Mr. Hauman approached ThinkGeek regarding merchandise and distribution for Boldly. Although they indicated they could handle distribution, they raised concerns about licensing, which Mr. Hauman confirmed was not obtained as the work was a parody. ThinkGeek ultimately agreed to order 5,000 copies if they could be ready for Christmas. Additionally, the defendants launched a Kickstarter campaign to fund Boldly's production costs, stating their belief in the work's compliance with fair use, while acknowledging potential legal challenges from intellectual property rights holders. They did not seek a license from Plaintiff or CBS/Paramount.
The Kickstarter campaign for the project concluded on September 30, 2016, with 727 backers pledging a total of $29,575. Following this, Allison Adler, an editor at Andrews McMeel Publishing (AMP), learned about the project and approached the Defendants to present it to AMP's Acquisitions Committee, targeting graduates and fans of Star Trek and Dr. Seuss. Conversations between Mr. Hauman and Ms. Adler included discussions about potential sequels, merchandise, and the legal implications of these concepts. On September 19, 2016, AMP formally offered to publish the project, culminating in a letter of agreement on September 21, 2016. AMP later set a publication date of February 28, 2017, to align with graduation sales.
On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff sent three cease-and-desist letters to the Defendants regarding the use of Copyrighted Works, along with a DMCA takedown notice to Kickstarter on October 7, 2016. Upon receiving the first letter, AMP's President expressed concerns about the associated risks, leading AMP to withdraw from the project. The Defendants retained legal counsel and issued a response letter to the Plaintiff on October 28, 2016, refusing the demands and planning to counter-notice Kickstarter to restore the campaign on October 31, 2016. The Plaintiff filed an infringement lawsuit on November 10, 2016.
In response to the litigation, Mr. Gerrold suggested altering the artwork to mitigate potential copyright issues, while Mr. Templeton acknowledged that his original illustrations closely mimicked Dr. Seuss's style. On November 15, 2016, Mr. Hauman informed ThinkGeek about the Plaintiff's claims, and on February 2, 2017, ThinkGeek inquired about the project’s status, expressing interest in offering the book. As of the latest update, the project remains unpublished.
The procedural background outlines the developments in the case following the filing of Plaintiff's Complaint on November 10, 2016. Defendants initially sought to dismiss Plaintiff's copyright claims based on fair use and trademark claims due to a lack of cognizable trademark rights. On June 9, 2017, the Court partially granted and partially denied this motion. The Court determined that the work "Boldly" was highly transformative, using only what was necessary for its purpose, and did not harm the market for Plaintiff's original work, "Go!". Although the Court did not classify "Boldly" as a parody, it acknowledged its transformative nature. The commercial intent of the Defendants was deemed of slight weight against the transformative work, and while some degree of harm to Plaintiff was presumed, it was mitigated by the distinct market functions of "Boldly" and "Go!". The Court ultimately denied Defendants' motion concerning fair use. In addressing Plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition claims, the Court applied the Rogers test, finding relevance in the use of Plaintiff's trademarks for artistic purposes and no misleading implications regarding the source. However, the Court did not dismiss Plaintiff's trademark claim related to the title "Go!" due to a failure by Defendants to address potential confusion. Defendants' motion regarding nominative fair use was granted as Plaintiff did not contest it effectively. Consequently, Plaintiff's unfair competition claims were also dismissed, but the Court allowed Plaintiff to file an amended complaint for its trademark and unfair competition claims.
Plaintiff filed the Amended Complaint on June 22, 2017, which led to Defendants' second motion to dismiss that the Court denied. The Court reaffirmed its analysis on the first three fair use factors but re-evaluated the fourth factor, stating it would not presume market harm due to Boldly's transformative nature. However, it identified potential harm to the market for Plaintiff's derivative works, favoring the Plaintiff on that factor. Regarding trademark and unfair competition claims, the Court determined that the title "Go!" may receive trademark protection, while Plaintiff’s claimed illustration style was not protectable. The analysis focused on the use of the title and font in relation to Defendants' nominative fair use arguments. The Court ruled that while there was no descriptive substitute for "Go!" and its use was necessary, Defendants' use of the distinctive font was unnecessary to convey their message about Boldly being a mash-up of "Go!" and Star Trek.
On December 21, 2017, Defendants answered the First Amended Complaint and moved for judgment on the pleadings regarding Plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition claims, citing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distribution, Inc. They also sought a request to the register of copyrights, arguing that Mr. Geisel's copyright registration applications were materially inaccurate. The Court denied the copyright request and partially granted Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that Defendants' use of Plaintiff’s trademarks was relevant to Boldly's artistic purpose. The Court found that the title of Boldly did not breach the Lanham Act and dismissed the related trademark and unfair competition claims, while reserving judgment on whether Plaintiff had protectable trademark rights in the font and illustration style. Defendants contended that "The Sneetches" and "The Zax" were published without timely copyright renewal and that Mr. Geisel failed to disclose their prior publication in his registration application for Sneetches.
Go! incorporated material from Mr. Geisel's earlier work "The Economic Situation Clarified: A Prognostic Re-Evaluation,” which was not disclosed in the registration application for Go!. Defendants requested the Court to ask the Register of Copyrights whether this omission would have influenced the registration outcomes for Go! and Sneetches. The Court dismissed the Defendants' claims, determining that the Redbook stories did not constitute a "substantial part" of Sneetches and that Go! did not use significant preexisting material from "Economic Situation."
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party may seek summary judgment if there is no genuine dispute regarding any material fact. A material fact is one that could affect the case's outcome, and a genuine dispute exists if reasonable evidence could lead a jury to rule for the nonmoving party. The burden to show no genuine issue lies with the moving party, which can do so by presenting evidence from pleadings, depositions, and affidavits. If the moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party must then present specific facts that demonstrate a genuine dispute, rather than relying on mere allegations or denials.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on all of Plaintiff's remaining claims, arguing entitlement to summary adjudication based on their affirmative defenses of Fair Use and First Amendment rights.
Defendants are seeking summary adjudication on the Plaintiff's copyright infringement claim, arguing that their work, Boldly, constitutes fair use. Under the fair use doctrine established in 17 U.S.C. § 107 and clarified by case law, courts assess four non-exclusive factors: (1) the purpose and character of the use, (2) the nature of the copyrighted work, (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used, and (4) the effect on the market value of the original work. The analysis is flexible and case-specific, designed to promote creativity and innovation.
For the first factor, the focus is on whether the new work merely replaces the original or adds new expression or meaning, which indicates a transformative nature. Transformative works generally favor fair use, even if they are commercially motivated. Although Boldly is not a parody, it is deemed transformative. The Court acknowledged that while Defendants created their work for profit, this factor's weight is diminished due to its transformative nature and the absence of market harm to the original work.
Defendants assert that the Court's prior analysis on this factor is conclusive, while Plaintiff urges reconsideration based on the Federal Circuit's decision in Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC, which outlines three inquiries: the commercial nature of the use, whether the new work transforms or supplants the original, and whether the infringer acted in bad faith.
Plaintiff argues that Boldly fails on three counts, asserting it is highly commercial, not transformative, and that Defendants acted in bad faith. The Court finds the Plaintiff's reliance on Oracle unpersuasive, noting a key distinction: in Oracle, the Defendants copied 37 API packages verbatim, whereas in Boldly, copied elements were interspersed with original content that transformed Go!'s pages into a Star Trek-themed work. Defendants did not copy Go! verbatim nor replicate entire illustrations, and while they borrowed from Go! liberally, the borrowed elements were transformed. The Court concludes that Boldly, although commercial, is highly transformative and does not serve the same intrinsic purpose as Go!, as it is specifically tailored for Star Trek fans. The Court also determines that discussions of licensing and Defendants' classification of Boldly as a "fair use parody" do not indicate bad faith, stating that bad faith is not necessarily demonstrated by a failure to seek legal counsel. Additionally, the Court clarifies that the mere fact that Boldly could be a derivative work does not preclude it from being transformative or qualifying as fair use. The Court emphasizes that the exclusive rights defined in the Copyright Act are subject to the doctrine of fair use, allowing for the possibility of Boldly being both derivative and transformative. Ultimately, the Court reaffirms its previous conclusion that the use by Defendants is fair.
The Court reaffirms its previous finding that the nature of the copyrighted use slightly favors the Plaintiff, acknowledging that the copyrighted works are highly creative but have been published extensively. Regarding the amount and substantiality of the portion used, the Court notes that while the Defendants copied elements from the Plaintiff's works, they did so in a transformative manner, adding new meaning and illustrations that create a unique perspective. The Court emphasizes that copying more than necessary does not automatically weigh against the alleged infringer if it serves their intended transformative purpose. The Plaintiff argues that recent developments and the Federal Circuit's decision in Oracle support their claim that the Defendants took more than necessary to create their mash-up and that the addition of content from another copyright holder does not mitigate this. However, the Court remains unpersuaded, reiterating that the key question is whether the Defendants only used what was necessary for their intended use. The case is compared to Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp., where the defendant similarly sought to create a work inspired by a well-known image, focusing on the transformative aspect rather than infringing intent.
The defendant digitally enhanced a photograph of themselves to mimic Ms. Moore's skin tone and body shape from the plaintiff's original image. Leslie Nielsen's face was superimposed on the model's body, altering her serious expression to his mischievous smirk. The resulting poster promoted a movie scheduled for release in March. The Second Circuit noted that when evaluating the amount and substantiality of the used elements, only the protected aspects of the original work should be considered. The court concluded that the plaintiff is not entitled to protection for the depiction of a nude, pregnant body but is entitled to protection for specific artistic elements such as lighting, skin tone, and camera angle. Ultimately, the court determined that the defendant used more of the plaintiff’s photograph than necessary to evoke it, but that this did not weigh heavily against fair use if the first and fourth factors favored the defendant. The court emphasized the importance of distinguishing between elements entitled to copyright protection and those in the public domain, illustrating this with examples from both parties' works. It noted that while the plaintiff could claim copyright for unique elements like rainbow-colored rings, broad protections would hinder creative expression. The defendant's work, while incorporating aspects of the plaintiff's original, presented a distinctly different character, as seen in the depiction of Captain Kirk in place of the plaintiff's narrator. The court concluded that the defendants utilized less of the plaintiff’s copyrighted works, both quantitatively and qualitatively, compared to the defendant in the Leibovitz case.
In Leibovitz, the defendant used nearly the entire photograph of the plaintiff, altering only the face. In contrast, the defendants here utilized specific elements of the Copyrighted Works, such as cross-hatching, object placements, and distinctive facial features, without employing Dr. Seuss's words, characters, or universe. The court maintained that the defendants' use was limited to what was necessary for their "mash-up" of Go! and Star Trek, indicating that this factor does not weigh against them.
Regarding market effect, the court reiterated that this factor assesses not only market harm but also the potential impact of widespread conduct similar to the defendants'. If the use does not replace the original and serves a different market function, it favors fair use. Although the plaintiff claimed potential harm to licensing opportunities, the court acknowledged that Boldly does not substitute for Go! and targets a different consumer base—those familiar with both Go! and Star Trek. The court had previously deemed Boldly transformative, leading to a presumption against market harm. The burden of proof regarding future market harm then rests on the plaintiff, who must demonstrate substantial harm by a preponderance of the evidence. This factor is often considered the most critical element of fair use.
The plaintiff argues that the product "Boldly" is designed to compete with and potentially replace "Go!" in the graduation gift market, particularly appealing to Star Trek fans. The plaintiff highlights its own history of publishing derivative works based on the original "DSE Works" and asserts that combining these works with Star Trek content is a type of collaborative project that should be licensed. The plaintiff warns that allowing unlicensed collaborative mash-ups could harm the market for authorized works.
Conversely, the defendants claim the plaintiff has not demonstrated how "Boldly" would negatively impact its market, suggesting that the plaintiff's concerns are merely speculative and do not warrant delaying the publication of "Boldly." During a court hearing, the plaintiff was asked to present evidence showing that "Boldly" would likely harm the market for "Go!" and its derivatives. The plaintiff argued that targeting fans of both "Seuss" and "Trek" could lead to significant sales of "Boldly" instead of "Go!"
Despite the plaintiff's evidence of a robust licensing program and previous collaborations, the court determined that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient proof that "Boldly" would cause substantial harm to its market. The potential harm was deemed hypothetical, referencing case law for support. The court concluded that the plaintiff did not meet its burden of proof regarding the likelihood of market harm due to "Boldly."
The copyright owner, a media company, amassed over 17,000 user-generated video clips anticipated to "go viral," monetizing them through ad-supported syndication and licensing for television. The alleged infringer utilized some of these clips without a license in a humor program on YouTube, which involved commentary and editing of the videos. In examining the fair use defense, the district court concluded that the infringer's use was transformative for all but one video, with its commercial nature being outweighed by this transformativeness. The court noted that the humorist's additional elements created a new purpose and character for the videos.
Regarding market harm, the copyright holder speculated that its videos held the greatest value shortly after publication, coinciding with when the alleged infringer copied them. However, the court found the copyright holder failed to provide specific evidence of the videos' value before and after the infringement. It cautioned against circular reasoning in assessing harm, as fair use negates the need for a licensing fee. The copyright holder also claimed the infringer's episodes diminished demand for its content, presenting evidence of licenses to similar shows. Although the court acknowledged the potential for viewer substitution, it highlighted the lack of admissible evidence from both parties regarding actual market harm. The copyright holder relied on speculative testimony, while the alleged infringer's defense was based on weak evidence. Ultimately, the court found that any market harm was hypothetical and did not favor either party.
The Ninth Circuit found Google's use of thumbnails of copyrighted images to be highly transformative, indicating that market harm could not be presumed without evidence. The copyright holder's claim of a market for reduced-sized images lacked substantiation, as no evidence was presented showing that downloads of Google's thumbnails for mobile use had occurred. Thus, the potential harm to the copyright holder's market remained hypothetical. The court reversed the district court's decision, determining that the fourth fair use factor did not favor either party.
In reviewing the case concerning the work "Boldly," the court noted that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that "Boldly" would significantly harm the market for "Go!" or its licensed derivatives. The court emphasized that "Boldly" does not substitute for "Go!" and serves a different market function, appealing instead to consumers already familiar with both "Go!" and the Star Trek series. Despite being described as "family friendly," "Boldly" contains adult themes and illustrations, indicating it is targeted at an adult audience rather than children. The court concluded that "Boldly" is unlikely to adversely affect the market for Dr. Seuss's works, reinforcing its previous findings on the transformative nature of the defendants' use.
Boldly is not a children's book, and it poses a minimal risk of competing with Go! in the children's market. The primary concern is its potential impact on Go!'s graduation and derivative markets. Plaintiff alleges that Boldly was intended to compete with Go! for graduation gifts, supported by evidence that the publisher aimed to market Boldly to graduates and their parents, as well as fans of Star Trek and Dr. Seuss. Despite this, there is a lack of evidence regarding the likelihood of purchases or the impact on Go!'s licensing revenues. Go! is Plaintiff's best-selling book, consistently performing well in sales, while Boldly raised a modest amount through Kickstarter and received a significant order for Christmas sales. There is insufficient evidence to determine how Boldly may affect Go!'s sales or Plaintiff's licensing opportunities, which have been substantial in the past. Plaintiff has not demonstrated that the publication of Boldly would negatively impact its licensing revenues or opportunities, as illustrated by previous case law. Overall, the evidence presented does not establish a clear connection between Boldly's publication and any detriment to Plaintiff's market.
The excerpt addresses the implications of potential market licensing on fair use determinations in copyright law. It highlights that a lack of evidence showing that potential licensees would be discouraged from licensing copyrighted videos does not support claims of market harm. The argument that any non-payment for use automatically indicates market impairment is critiqued as circular reasoning, asserting that recognizing potential licensing revenue as harmful in all cases would skew the fair use analysis in favor of copyright holders.
Citing various case law, it emphasizes that the primary objective of copyright is to promote the advancement of knowledge and creativity, rather than solely rewarding authors. The text underscores that the existence of a theoretical market does not justify prohibiting transformative uses, as lost licensing revenue is only relevant when the use acts as a substitute for the original work. Furthermore, it contends that copyright holders cannot monopolize markets related to their works, as this contradicts the purpose of copyright law. It concludes that copyright owners cannot exclude others from fair use markets, such as parody or educational use, by restricting access to their own work.
The author of 'Twin Peaks' cannot claim exclusive rights over all works inspired by the 'Twin Peaks' phenomenon, as Section 107 of copyright law allows for fair use that does not harm the market for the original work. The court notes that the plaintiff has not provided evidence of substantial market harm from the challenged work, leading to a neutral stance on that factor. The fair use analysis involves weighing multiple factors, with no single factor dominating the outcome. The court recognizes that the transformative nature of the defendants' work, despite its commercial intent, favors them. While the plaintiff's works are creative, their long-standing publication gives the second factor a slight advantage to the plaintiff. The court finds that the defendants borrowed only what was necessary, and any potential market harm to the plaintiff is speculative, resulting in a neutral fourth factor. Overall, these considerations favor the defendants, leading to a grant of their Motion for Summary Judgment on fair use.
Regarding trademark infringement claims, the defendants seek summary judgment on the surviving claims related to the stylized font and illustration style used in Dr. Seuss's works. They argue that neither element is protectable under trademark law and assert that their use is protected by the First Amendment. The defendants contend that trademark law does not cover an artist's overall style, while the plaintiff argues that both the illustration style and font fall under the broad definitions of marks within the Lanham Act.
Plaintiff asserts that their stylized font and unique illustration style are distinctive and have gained secondary meaning among the public, supporting their trademark claims. They reference a survey by expert Hal L. Poret indicating that 24% of consumers are confused about the origin of a competing product due to the Defendants' use of similar styles, which is relevant to establishing confusion. However, the Court previously determined that Plaintiff's general illustration style is not protectable under trademark law, referencing case law that indicates artistic styles lack trademark protection. Consequently, the Court grants Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's trademark claims based on artistic style and asserting that copyright, not trademark law, protects artistic expressions. The Court emphasizes that extending trademark protections into areas reserved for copyright would undermine legal boundaries established by the Supreme Court. The Court also agrees with Defendants that a mutable font does not qualify for trademark rights, as only the name of a typeface can be trademarked, not the design itself. Publications can use distinctive typefaces but cannot claim trademark or copyright protections over the typeface designs.
The New Yorker is unlikely to use trademark law to prevent others from utilizing a combination of the Irvin and Adobe Caslon typefaces, even if such a combination is associated with its brand. The defendants argue that their publication "Boldly" does not use the specific Dr. Seuss fonts, which are recommended for licensed use according to The New Yorker's Style Guide. Evidence shows that the Dr. Seuss font is the primary font for its licensing program, inspired by Dr. Seuss's original lettering from "The Cat in the Hat."
The Court previously determined that the defendants had not met the nominative fair use factor, as the lettering in "Go!" and "Boldly" was identical. However, upon reviewing the Ninth Circuit's ruling in "Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distribution, Inc.," the Court found that "Boldly" did not violate the Lanham Act because its title is relevant to its content and there is no evidence suggesting it misleads about the work's source. Consequently, the Court concluded that the defendants’ use of Seussian typefaces, unassociated with an enforceable trademark, cannot substantiate a violation of the Lanham Act or California's Unfair Competition Law.
The Court granted the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment regarding the plaintiff's trademark and unfair competition claims based on the typefaces. Additionally, it did not address the defendants' First Amendment protection argument since the Court ruled that the plaintiff's artistic style and font lack trademark protection. The Court denied the plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and found the plaintiff's motions to strike and exclude expert testimony moot, as those were not relied upon in the Court’s decisions. The Court ultimately granted the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed the plaintiff's motions to exclude and strike. The filings were permitted to remain under seal due to confidentiality designations.
Exhibits from the Plaintiff without native pagination will be cited based on the pagination provided by the Plaintiff. The issue regarding derivative works relates to the copyrightability of "Boldly," referencing 17 U.S.C. § 103(a), which outlines copyright protection for derivative works. The unauthorized reproduction may be lawful under fair use or foreign law, which does not apply in this case. The Plaintiff claims that "Boldly" features a character derived from a Dr. Seuss work, specifically a "boy," but the Plaintiff's copyright protection is limited to the specific character from their work, characterized by a yellow cap and onesie. Although the protagonist in "Boldly" shares some features with the "boy," he is ultimately transformed into Captain Kirk from Star Trek. Thus, the Court finds the Plaintiff's claim of character infringement unpersuasive.
A referenced video, determined by the district court as non-transformative, involved a copyrighted clip intended for commentary but lacked transformative elements, as the purpose was not directed at critiquing the original video. In contrast, the Court finds that the use of the character in "Boldly" does not mirror this situation. The Plaintiff's assertion that "Boldly" was aimed at graduates is rejected; evidence suggests it was marketed to Star Trek fans, particularly with efforts to align with events like World Con and partnerships with ThinkGeek, which caters to science fiction enthusiasts.
Courts are instructed to consider only the copyright holder's established markets, and the Plaintiff's "Style Guide" supports the defendants' argument that "Boldly" occupies a market not traditionally targeted by the Plaintiff. Specific instructions within the guide prohibit licensees from mixing Seuss characters with non-Seuss items or creating Seuss-like content, further reinforcing that "Boldly" does not infringe upon the Plaintiff's copyright.
The document outlines several key issues regarding the use of third-party characters and elements from Star Trek in a work titled "Boldly." It notes that this work incorporates a mix of Seussian-style rhymes and Star Trek wordplay, such as depicting the protagonist in a spacesuit on the Enterprise. The court has previously ruled that the title "Boldly" does not infringe on the Lanham Act, thereby granting the defendants' motion for judgment on parts of the plaintiff's complaint related to this title. Consequently, the court has also granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment concerning Count II of the plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, which involves an unauthorized use of the plaintiff's trademark, "OH THE PLACES YOU'LL GO." Additionally, the document clarifies the distinction between "typeface" and "font," indicating that the defendants are accused of using the plaintiff's typefaces, not the underlying code or fonts.
