INTA Amicus Brief in BETTY BOOP Case

INTA press release here.

“. . . in concluding that Appellant ‘is not using Betty Boop as a trademark, but instead as a functional product’ . . . the majority erred by sua sponte reincarnating the outdated and much-critcized aesthetic functionality doctrine . . .” (page 7)

“. . . the majority erred in its dictum that, when a copyrighted work falls into the public domain, the owner of a trademark comprised of that work cannot assert trademark rights because that would prevent the work ‘from ever entering the public domain,'” (Id.)


One response to “INTA Amicus Brief in BETTY BOOP Case”

  1. […] A.V.E.L.A. obtained some of these promotional materials and sold not only copies of ‘vintage’ movie posters, but ‘extracted’ the images and modified them for merchandise such as apparel and action figures (yes, same A.V.E.L.A. in the Betty Boop case). […]