(CN) — A stuntman character from the 2019 animated film “Toy Story 4” did not infringe on the trademarks of daredevil Evel Knievel, a Nevada federal court ruled.
K&K Productions, the company of Knievel’s son, sued Disney claiming the character Duke Caboom violated their intellectual property and publicity rights to the daredevil stunt performer who rose to prominence in the 1960s, 70s and 80s.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge James Mahan concluded that the Disney character — a 1970s stuntman action figure — “contains significant transformative elements” that make the character “’reminiscent’ of Evel Knievel, but not a literal depiction.”
Mahan noted the discrepancies between the real-life celebrity stuntman and the animated supporting character from the film.
“The action figure has a different name, different clothing, Canadian rather than American insignia, the addition of a moustache and a different hair color and style,” Mahan wrote. Knievel died in 2007, more than a decade before "Toy Story 4" came out.
Though Duke Caboom also sports a jumpsuit and helmet and attempts his seemingly gravity-defying feats on a motorcycle, these parallels with Knievel did not convince the court that Duke Caboom was a direct imitation of Knievel rather than Disney’s artistic expression of a stuntman.
The court used a framework called the Rogers test, from a 1989 ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, to evaluate the claims brought by K&K Productions. Under the framework, a trademark in an artistic work would only be actionable if Knievel’s likeness had no artistic relevance to the work or it explicitly misled consumers to believe Knievel was involved with the film.
Mahan found Disney had satisfied the framework’s low threshold for artistic relevance.
“Duke Caboom is an integral character in the film 'Toy Story 4.' His character is integrally related to the plot and is not just mere cameo appearance,” Mahan wrote. “The court is not willing to make the unreasonable inference on the facts that the Duke Caboom’s appearance is simply a gratuitous showing of an Evel Knievel-esque motorcycle stuntman.”
Citing the differences between Knievel and Duke Caboom, Mahan further found K&K Productions did not present any evidence that Disney “explicitly attempt[ed] to mislead consumers into believing that Mr. Knievel sponsors, endorses, or is associated with the film.”
The case is dismissed without prejudice, with Mahan suggesting additional facts might lead to more plausible claims under federal trademark and Nevada right of publicity laws.
Representatives for K&K Productions and Disney did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
