comScore
  1. Mediaite
  2. Gossip Cop
  3. Geekosystem
  4. Styleite
  5. SportsGrid
  6. The Mary Sue
  7. The Jane Dough
  8. The Braiser

May the Odds Be Ever in Your Favor

Warner Bros. Trying to Trademark Everything About The Wizard of Oz — But the Original Work Is Public Domain

by Jamie Frevele | 2:15 pm, February 13th, 2012


So, back in 1939, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer made a little movie called The Wizard of Oz, based on an 1899 novel by L. Frank Baum called The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Fast forward to 2012, when the story has been retold and adapted in a variety of ways, usually referring back to the novel. Why? Because it’s in the public domain, meaning, there is no issue of copyright or trademark. However, now that Disney has filed to trademark Oz, the Great and Powerful ahead of the 2013 release of its movie of the same name, Warner Bros. is clearing its throat, trying to remind everyone (as if we’d forget) that it owns the rights to The Wizard of Oz, and it filed for its own trademark of “The Great and Powerful Oz.” And now, they’re going after everything Oz-related, claiming that no one could have gotten their Oz-related ideas from anything but the movie — not even the novel that Warner Bros. based its own movie on.

The double trademark filing occurred in October, with WB filing just about a week after Disney did. But last week, an examiner from the United States Trademark Office turned down WB’s request, saying that Disney had already filed one. Then, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that WB could have “character protection,” referring to the specific likenesses of Judy Garland et al. The actual character of Dorothy Gale was originated by Baum and appeared in the novel, and is not subject to the same protection. The case had concerned the selling of nostalgia pieces with images directly coming from or inspired by the movie.

But now, WB is assuming that all Oz-inspired merchandise must have referred to their movie, even while the illustrations in Baum’s novel provide similar interpretations of the characters in the text. WB believes they are similar enough! Because no one reads books! Even the phrase “Flying Monkeys,” a pair of words that are not even uttered in the movie in reference to the Wicked Witch’s henchy creatures, have been deemed by WB to fall under their protection. There were pictures of them, though — in the novel. It doesn’t stop there — WB has gotten downright trademark-insane:

In the past year, Warners has been one of the most aggressive filers of oppositions at the USPTO’s Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. Especially over The Wizard of Oz.

For instance, the company has gone after potential merchandise associated with Dorothy of Oz, a $60 million-budgeted animation film scheduled to be released later this year by Summertime Entertainment.

Warners also has attacked registrations on a series of neuroscience books entitled “If I Only Had A Brain,” a restaurant called “Wicked ‘Wiches Wickedly Delicious Sandwiches,” a clothing line known as “Wizard of Azz,” Halloween costumes under the brand name “Wicked of Oz,” and dozens of other Oz-related marks.

One pending case at the TTAB is especially enlightening.

It concerns wines being marketed in the state of Kansas. Among them are “Dorothy of Kansas and Toto Wine,” “Ruby Slippers Wine,” “Broomstick Wine,” “The Lion’s Courage,” and “Flying Monkey Wine.”

Warners is objecting, of course.

WB’s lawyer had mentioned that no one would think to just use direct references to Harry Potter in something without expecting a trademark battle, clearly not realizing that Harry Potter is not exactly public domain.

Warner Bros. claims that it is not trying to derail any upcoming adaptations of L. Frank Baum’s The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. They just want to protect their movie, The Wizard of Oz. In the most ironic ways possible — by claiming that all these things borrowing from public domain material are ripping off their movie. Their movie that borrowed from public domain material.

(via The Hollywood Reporter)

TAGS: | | | | |


  • Anonymous

    So…Wicked the musical, anyone?

    There’s a SHRED of a valid point here – if they can show that a particular interpretation of a character looks more like the movie version than the original book version, they could make a case.  There are numerous plot points that are only in the film – the whole idea of the Ozites having what they wanted all along for example; in the book the Wizard literally answer their wishes, pouring Lion a bowl of courage, fills Scarecrow’s head with bran (a “bran new brain”) and cutting open Nick Chopper’s chest ind installing a heart. The Ruby slippers ARE unique to the film – they’re silver in the book.

    This is another one of those cases where in order to go after the cases they want to, they have to go after EVERY case, or the defendant can claim they’re not enforcing the trademark equally.

    They can certainly trademark the title, and as the finding saysm the specific likensses of the characters.  And Disney can trademark their film’s title, and their likenesses. Come to think of it, did they do so for their film Return To Oz made all those years ago?

      But as I say, this is just ass-covering.  It’s similar to the Harry Potter website shutdown frenzy they went on years ago, and will likely be settled amicably.

  • https://twitter.com/#!/haversam [A]

    The good/bad thing about public domains tuff. Good, you can’t make it “your own”. Bad, you can adapt it in many awful ways..

  • https://twitter.com/SeeSome Charley Sumner

    They might be able to get away with busting “Ruby Slippers Wine” as the ruby slippers are from the movie, not the book.

  • Frodo Baggins

    Whelp, not gonna see this movie.

  • Anonymous

    That’s the point – WB is going after items from the MGM movie that they could make a case that they own, separate from the original books. Hence the references to the songs, things like that.

    Connected to the Ghost Rider issue from this weekend, this is another case of the legal side of the business dictating policy to the PR side, and not caring what people will think of the actions. 

  • Anonymous

    I think that was the only real thing from the movie, and the only reason they were ruby was because of TECHNICOLOR! :D Silver was just too.. black and white!

  • Mark Bannon

    Curiously, I don’t know if WB could contend the “ruby slippers” angle unless they had previously done so when Disney made Return to Oz in 1985. If they ignored it then, they were not defending their copyright to that change from the original material and they lost their rights to it.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/DQ4OBIG6KTLZZDHT3ZXAMQCWUQ Bobby

    Actually, Disney had to jump through hoops to get the rights to use the Ruby Slippers in “Return To Oz”. I’m sure they paid a hefty price to MGM for the privilege. 

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/NYZ6R7HTH7W43XKDEEYFPDNZLE Kim

    My friend just met a chocolate man on Blackwhitemeet.COMit’s where for men and women looking for interracial’ship for a fabulous lifestyle
    It’s a nice place for black white sing’les, to interact with each other…no bounds or extremes in front of true love.

  • Anonymous

    I mentioned a couple other above, like the whole “in you all along” thing, and the songs. 

    Not to mention that in the book, it was no gorram DREAM.

  • http://www.facebook.com/Gorillazfan Emily Hill

    oh dear god this is going to slow my idea of a musical meadly where you have music genre like country and pop see I figure have Willie Nelson as the scare crow Beyonce as a female version of the cowardly lion and a mechanical girl played by taylor swift for tin man then I thought of having Pink as the wicked witch of the west Janet Jackson as the good witch of the south and Lady gaga as the good witch of the north still working on who I want to be dorothy

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Keichi-Morisato/100000966444006 Keichi Morisato

    yet disney owns the ride that the movie is featured in… the great movie ride… i guess WB own MGM now? MGM had been owned by sony disney and a slew of other companies including itself. MGM no longer makes films but i think they ow just simply benefit from moving certain patents.

  • Anonymous

    Hmm…this is like that internet bill (sopa) let’s go on a spree, to be sure we can get EVERY Possible penny out of (our) ideas, and keep OTHER’S From doing it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000217601411 Cathy Ciszek

    They changes the color of the slippers, because silver would not have had so high an impact in their Brand New Technicolor reveal as ruby. Nearly everything else other than the songs came direct form the Wizard of Oz BOOKS ( there are 14). and those are in teh public domain. WB may win on ruby Slippers Wine, but they will have to work hard to prove anything that does n’t look specifically like the movie has any relation. Meanwhile they will be tying up the courts. The movie was copywrited…that is protection enough, they don’t need to trademark it. Though I will admit it would be amusing to see the big boys battling it out between them with things and shows like Tin Man and Dorothy of Oz ( one of the books is titled Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz and is public domain).

  • http://daibhid-c.livejournal.com/ Daibhid C

    Does he literally answer their wishes, or does he just go to more effort in pretending to? The line I remember is something like “How can I help being a humbug if people keep asking me for things that can’t be done?”

X