The image of a burning teddy bear in a video game infringed the plaintiff’s “Snuggle Bear” mark, but the game maker’s continued use after an injunction was excusable because the harm to the plaintiff was marginal while enforcing the injunction might have been catastrophic for the defendant, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held Dec. 7 (Conopco Inc. v. 3DO Co., S.D.N.Y., No. 99CV10893, 12/7/99).
SNUGGLE BEAR ASSAULTED
The 3DO Co. sells the video game “BattleTanx: Global Assault.” In its television commercials, it depicted a “Snuggle Bear”-like character. Conopco Inc., the owner of the “Snuggle Bear” mark, filed suit against 3DO for copyright and trademark infringement. It requested and was granted an injunction. The order prohibited further commercials and any use or reference to a bear that is confusingly similar to, or would dilute the distinctiveness of, the “Snuggle Bear” mark or character.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]