Spider-Man, Spider-Man, fighting IP litigation like a spider can
Disney filed a counterclaim asking the judge to dismiss the case and bar Stan Lee Media from further trying to assert IP rights over Marvel characters.
March 26, 2014 at 07:35 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Oh, what a tangled web Spider-Man weaves, when first IP lawyers practice to deceive…
Who actually owns the rights to the money-making comic book character? Stan Lee Media Inc. believes that the rights to Spider-Man belong to Stan Lee, the successful Marvel comic book creator. Disney — and four previous court cases — believe, however, that Stan Lee's creations belong to Marvel, which is now owned by Disney. Now, a district court may have the final say.
Stan Lee Media is trying to assert its IP rights once again in court. According to Deadline, at issue is the theater show Broadway: Now & Forever, produced by American Music Theater (AMT). AMT claims that it received permission to use Spider-Man's likeness from SLMI. Disney, however, challenged that claim and attempted to have production halted. SLMI responded by suing to have its purported IP rights recognized.
Rather than passively settling, however, Disney has gone on the offensive. The company filed a counterclaim in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in which Disney lawyers asked the judge to dismiss the case and bar Stan Lee Media from further attempts to assert IP rights.
“Making SLMI's patently frivolous ownership claims AMT's defense to a straightforward copyright infringement suit gets neither of them anywhere,” Disney's filing said. “Judge Crotty held some four years ago it was time to 'call a halt' to SLMI's vexatious litigation. This Court should now end this SLMI-financed frolic and detour once and for all.”
Disney claims that SLMI is willfully misinterpreting a 1998 agreement between the two parties, in which Disney agreed to give control of assets created by Lee after 1998 to SLMI.
“It is clear on its face that the parties to the 1998 Agreement intended it to apply only to characters that Stan Lee was to create after 1998 and that it did not effect any transfer of ownership of characters created as works made for hire more than a half-century ago – nor could it have, as Lee has consistently maintained that he never owned any rights in any historic Marvel character,” Disney's filing said.
If Disney has its way, then SLMI may not have a further legal leg to stand on. SLMI lost a case in Colorado in December 2013 in which it had claimed rights to multiple Marvel characters, and another court ruled against SLMI claiming Marvel profits in a different forum earlier that year.
Disney's lawyers have been getting a workout recently. Read more legal news from The Mouse:
IP: Mess with this Mouse, you might get stuck in a hole
FCC fines media companies over false E.A.S. use in commercial
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
‘Facebook’s Descent Into Toxic Masculinity’ Prompts Stanford Professor to Drop Meta as Client
6 minute read
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
OpenAI Hires First Compliance Chief, Snagging Uber's Scott Schools
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
