Mark Yohalem of Munger, Tolles & Olson. Courtesy photo

Denise Daniels is probably getting in touch with Razzy, her Moodster character for anger, today.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected her bid to sue The Walt Disney Co. and Pixar over animated movie characters that resemble the Moodster characters from her children's toys and books.

The Moodsters are a color-coded set of characters that personify love (pink), happiness (yellow), sadness (blue), anger (red) and fear (green). Daniels released a 30-minute pilot for a television series featuring her characters in 2007, called "The Amoodsment Mixup," and repeatedly pitched the Moodsters to media and entertainment companies, especially The Walt Disney Co. and its affiliates, including Pixar.

Pixar did ultimately create an animated film, "Inside Out," that centers on five anthropomorphized emotions that live inside the mind of an 11-year-old girl: anger, fear and sadness are joined by joy and disgust in Pixar's version. Pete Docter, one of the Pixar executives Daniels allegedly pitched to, wrote and directed the movie.

But the plot of "Inside Out" isn't lifted from the Moodsters books or pilots, and the bar for copyrighting mere characters is high. Judge M. Margaret McKeown wrote for a unanimous panel that while distinctive, consistently drawn film characters ranging from James Bond to Godzilla to the Batmobile have been held copyrightable, Daniels' anthropomorphized emotions do not meet that standard.

"Although a character that has appeared in multiple productions or iterations 'need not have a consistent appearance,' it 'must display consistent, identifiable character traits and attributes; such that it is recognizable whenever it appears," McKeown wrote for a unanimous panel. But the Moodsters began as insect-like creatures in the TV pilot, but more recently have been depicted as small, lovable bears, McKeown wrote.

"Other than the idea of color and emotions, there are few other identifiable character traits and attributes that are consistent over the various iterations," she wrote in Daniels v. The Walt Disney Co., which affirms a dismissal of the complaint on the pleadings from U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez of the Central District of California.

Ninth Circuit Judge Jerome Farris and Judge Barrington Parker Jr., visiting from the Second Circuit, concurred with the opinion.

McKeown also noted that both colors and the idea of emotions cannot be copyrighted. "Taken together, these principles mean that Daniels cannot copyright the idea of colors or emotions, nor can she copyright the idea of using colors to represent emotions where these ideas are embodied in a character without sufficient delineation and distinctiveness," she wrote.

Munger, Tolles & Olson partner Mark Yohalem had the winning argument for Disney and Pixar. He told the court at argument last November that his clients didn't dispute the copyright in Daniels' books, toys and TV pilot, only whether the characters independent of the works were entitled to their own copyright. "That is the exception, not the rule, and these characters are not so exceptional," he told the court.

Robins Kaplan partner Patrick Arenz argued that no work before had ever personified emotions the way Daniels did, and that the uniqueness and distinctiveness of her characters are a fact-intensive issue that should not have been resolved on the pleadings.