So What's Coming to the New Pleasure Island?

[angelmav]

Originally Posted by KINGBOBOFTHENORTH

I'm not so sure about that. Certainly Universal has the exclusive rights to any Harry Potter themed restaurant but if someone else wanted to open a restaurant that had to do with wizards, there is no conflict with Universal as long as they don't use that name. Likewise, I think any of us could open a restaurant full of electronic jungle animals, call it Jungle Cafe, and operate it without violating Rain Forest Cafe trademarks. RFC doesn't have a lock on jungle animals in a restaurant setting. (Heck, most zoos in the country probably have restaurants in them that have pretend zoo animals within.)

BobK/Orlando

I think you underestimate copyright infringement laws with this example.

A court will infer copying by a showing of a "striking similarity" between the copyrighted work and the alleged copy.

Off the top of my head Coors sued Corrs (strictly over the idea that they were benefitting over name recognition owned by coors, however if memory serves the small family owned corrs was the older company), Atari sued Magnavox (claiming their KC Munchkin game was based on Pacman). These suits come up fairly often. No way could you open a "Jungle cafe" and not expect to be hauled in front of a judge.

That said, I think Disney would look like a pale imitator if they went in this direction and even if they didnt get sued, it would probably lead to a backlash.

[KINGBOBOFTHENORTH]

Originally Posted by angelmav

I think you underestimate copyright infringement laws with this example.

Well you may be right about the Jungle Cafe example I gave. It was too much of a copycat. But Schussler's concept already exists as a concept and that predates any restaurant Universal might open in the Harry Potter attraction. So who would be copying who? I think there would be legal room for both. And let's not forget that the mere filing of a lawsuit with allegations of copyright imfringement does not mean the suit actually has any merit. We hear a lot more about suits being filed than we ever do about what becomes of them. But your points are well-taken.

BobK/Orlando

[angelmav]

Originally Posted by KINGBOBOFTHENORTH

Well you may be right about the Jungle Cafe example I gave. It was too much of a copycat. But Schussler's concept already exists as a concept and that predates any restaurant Universal might open in the Harry Potter attraction. So who would be copying who? I think there would be legal room for both. And let's not forget that the mere filing of a lawsuit with allegations of copyright imfringement does not mean the suit actually has any merit. We hear a lot more about suits being filed than we ever do about what becomes of them. But your points are well-taken.

BobK/Orlando

I believe the issue is that the two businesses are in direct competition with each other so they are more sensitive to intellectual property. It would be like Univeral introducing Macky and Millie Mouse, Goofball, Pluton and Dan the Canadian Goose. For their part, Disney is rather aggressive about going after anyone that either uses their image or infringes on it so I cant see them riding the coattails on a competitor's idea. Really isnt anything to be gained by it anyway.

Regardless, dont want to turn this into a thread about copyrigh laws and how far Disney could go with the wizard idea as it's far more likely they rent out the space for someone that wishes to utilize the concept anyway. When the Weasley's open their joke shop in DTD, they can fight Universals corporate lawyers!

[KINGBOBOFTHENORTH]

Originally Posted by angelmav

It would be like Univeral introducing Macky and Millie Mouse, Goofball, Pluton and Dan the Canadian Goose.

Awesome idea!

BobK/Orlando

[zulemara]

I peeked in Mannequins last night. The mannequins are surprisingly still on the wall. The work light down by the lower entrance was on and I could still see things down there. I also saw the railing where you got off by the bar and could clearly see the dance floor is still there. They also had some white substance on the floor by the bathrooms by the smoking exit. I'm assuming it was to soak up the water that had been accumulating.

[Jason71]

Originally Posted by angelmav

I believe the issue is that the two businesses are in direct competition with each other so they are more sensitive to intellectual property. It would be like Univeral introducing Macky and Millie Mouse, Goofball, Pluton and Dan the Canadian Goose. For their part, Disney is rather aggressive about going after anyone that either uses their image or infringes on it so I cant see them riding the coattails on a competitor's idea. Really isnt anything to be gained by it anyway.

Regardless, dont want to turn this into a thread about copyrigh laws and how far Disney could go with the wizard idea as it's far more likely they rent out the space for someone that wishes to utilize the concept anyway. When the Weasley's open their joke shop in DTD, they can fight Universals corporate lawyers!

It's actually not "copyright" law that would be at issue here (doubt Schussler would be dumb enough to directly rip off characters/names), it's a closely related legal principle called "trade dress." And it's a nebulous area, particularly with restaurants. One taco place succeeded in suing another for copying their "look" and "feel", but the parent company of Orlando Alehouse and Hooters have had no luck suing people who basically cloned their restaurants (anyone who has been in a Winghouse can tell it's pretty clearly a Hooters clone, but the court let is slide).

Hard to say if a Universal lawsuit against Schussler would work considering neither spot has even opened yet. It would come down to the details, and both sides would probably end up with pretty hefty legal bills. But there's no question Disney has a history of opening attractions that closely mimic other attractions in the greater Orlando area (PI/Church St. Station, Living Seas/Sea World, MGM/Universal, AK/BG...).

[KINGBOBOFTHENORTH]

Originally Posted by Jason71

Hooters have had no luck suing people who basically cloned their restaurants (anyone who has been in a Winghouse can tell it's pretty clearly a Hooters clone, but the court let is slide).

Winghouse spent a bundle defending itself in this case but ultimately won. Don't know if Hooters had to pay their costs and attorney's fees. The concept is exactly the same with a menu based on wings and waitresses based on breasts and thighs!

BobK/Orlando

[LuluLovesDisney]

Originally Posted by lugnut33

No, nothing to discuss unless you want to discuss if Landry's will be opening another themed restaurant or if Coach will be opening a store. Besides, it's no longer Pleasure Island, it's being renamed, "Retailers Island".

The new backstory will be that a large conglomerate came in and bought out the Merriweather family so they could develop the area into a strip mall.

They should engrave that on a plaque and display it at the entrance.

[yitbos96bb]

Originally Posted by KINGBOBOFTHENORTH

Well you may be right about the Jungle Cafe example I gave. It was too much of a copycat. But Schussler's concept already exists as a concept and that predates any restaurant Universal might open in the Harry Potter attraction. So who would be copying who? I think there would be legal room for both. And let's not forget that the mere filing of a lawsuit with allegations of copyright imfringement does not mean the suit actually has any merit. We hear a lot more about suits being filed than we ever do about what becomes of them. But your points are well-taken.

BobK/Orlando

Actually Bob, you were probably more right in the first place... There are restaurants that copy each others themes all the time without any issues at all. Look at chains like Showbiz Pizza and Chuck E Cheese back in the day. A lot of would depend on how you did the menu, location and etc, but Angel is simplfying it way too much in saying that it would be infringement. Of course they might threaten to sue, knowing they'd lose, but try to drive you out of business with legal costs. Either way, it's not so simple that they could stop you from having a jungle themed animatronic restaurant. NOW, were you to do a Rain forest animatronic themed restaurant called Brazilian Bistro or something, THAT would more likely cause some issues... Although I have my doubts RFC would win to be honest...However, in your example jungle is not the rainforest and in the CORRS and COORS example, its because the name was similar and COORS could make an argument that they were capitalizing on their name... That argument can't be made for your Jungle THemed restaurant concept.

Or look at it this way... Medieval Manor vs Medieval Times vs the other various medieval dinner shows... Those are all pretty close, but both still run and operate. If a copyright case was makable, I'd bet one would have sued by now.

[yitbos96bb]

Originally Posted by Jason71

It's actually not "copyright" law that would be at issue here (doubt Schussler would be dumb enough to directly rip off characters/names), it's a closely related legal principle called "trade dress." And it's a nebulous area, particularly with restaurants. One taco place succeeded in suing another for copying their "look" and "feel", but the parent company of Orlando Alehouse and Hooters have had no luck suing people who basically cloned their restaurants (anyone who has been in a Winghouse can tell it's pretty clearly a Hooters clone, but the court let is slide).

Hard to say if a Universal lawsuit against Schussler would work considering neither spot has even opened yet. It would come down to the details, and both sides would probably end up with pretty hefty legal bills. But there's no question Disney has a history of opening attractions that closely mimic other attractions in the greater Orlando area (PI/Church St. Station, Living Seas/Sea World, MGM/Universal, AK/BG...).

To be accurate, MGM opened a year before Universal Orlando... it was just announced after Universal made their announcement.

[KINGBOBOFTHENORTH]

Originally Posted by yitbos96bb

Of course they might threaten to sue, knowing they'd lose, but try to drive you out of business with legal costs.

The courts very much frown on economic giants filing tenuous lawsuits against parties just to drive them out of business with legal expenses. Giants have to be very careful going down that road because they face huge punitive damages in the countersuit.

Originally Posted by yitbos96bb

If a copyright case was makable, I'd bet one would have sued by now.

In that case I will proceed with my railroad-themed 70's/80's nighclub to be called 8TRACKS!

BobK/Orlando

[yitbos96bb]

Originally Posted by KINGBOBOFTHENORTH

The courts very much frown on economic giants filing tenuous lawsuits against parties just to drive them out of business with legal expenses. Giants have to be very careful going down that road because they face huge punitive damages in the countersuit.




In that case I will proceed with my railroad-themed 70's/80's nighclub to be called 8TRACKS!

BobK/Orlando

Threatening to sue you and actually filing suit are two very different things. Sometimes a Cease and Desist letter will do wonders. And truthfully, I doubt any court would call a suit like that frivilous, even if it was most assuredly a loser.

[CanadianGuy]

So this is what Pleasure Island will be reduced to.. threats of copyright/trademark infringement and no bars and clubs.



K

[zulemara]

I'm tellin ya, a few million and I'll be more than happy to reopen CSS featuring Club Steam and Bell Bottoms and Tops! May as well throw in comedy where? house too!

[ConcKahuna]

Originally Posted by zulemara

...and Bell Bottoms and Tops!

Is that the 70's gay bar?