Subject:
|
Re: Well, this isn't good (especially for the Disney board here)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.disney
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Nov 2004 21:44:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4690 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.disney, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Joe Meno wrote:
> * SNIP *
> > MONTREAL, Nov. 12 - Mega Bloks Inc. today announced that it has agreed to enter
> > into licensing agreements with Disney Consumer Products and its affiliates, for
> > the creation of construction toys featuring beloved Disney(R) characters,
> > including Disney's Winnie the Pooh(R), Disney Princesses and classic characters
>
> I saw that yesterday at Fred Meyer, there was a huge aisle display of
> construction toys just waiting for the day-after-Thanksgiving sales. A big part
> of it consisted of LEGO tubs (700 pc buckets, good assortment), and right next
> to that pallet was a pallet of Megablok tubs with the MB "Pooh" assortment. At
> first I thought it was LEGO, since they had the Disney Pooh license a few years
> ago. Then the horrible reality of the MB logo sunk in.
Then you'd better brace yourself--MegaBloks has recently licenced some of Marvel
Comics' characters, and Spiderman is the first set to be revealed so far.
Potentially, you'll see LEGO Spiderman and MB Spiderman together on the very
same shelf this holiday season!
> If I, a dyed-in-the-wool LEGO maniac (certified), can be confused (even if only
> for a few seconds), then there's DEFINITE potential for marketplace confusion. I
> wonder just what type of licenses Disney insists on that lets them switch vendor
> companies like that? I know they have the mindset of "Sue first, ask questions
> in court" but this is pretty ridiculous. (BTW, even though I buy some Disney
> merchandise, I am not a big fan of their heavyhanded business practices.)
>
> This confusion can't be good for TLC's brand recognition in the marketplace. I
> hope to see something on LEGO's web site saying they're filing an injunction or
> something, but it probably won't happen. And if it did, it probably wouldn't
> help. *sigh*
That's a tough call. I suppose that Disney or LEGO could stipulate that neither
party will enter into a substantially-identical license agreement with any third
party for X years after the primary license expires, but it seems unlikely that
either party would submit to such terms.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
