Luxo sues Disney over hopping desk-lamp character

"Luxo Jr.," the squeaky desk-lamp character created by John Lasseter more than two decades ago, is in the spotlight again -- this time under the glare of a transatlantic lawsuit.

The hopping swivel lamp has been a corporate mascot for Pixar Animation Studios since its founder created the character in 1986 for a short computer-animated movie that was nominated for an Academy Award. Lasseter was said to have based the character on his own Luxo lamp.

But Norwegian lamp maker Luxo isn't happy with how Pixar and its parent company, Walt Disney Co., are using its name.

Luxo filed a lawsuit yesterday in New York federal court against Pixar and Disney accusing the companies of infringing on its copyright by selling a limited-edition "Luxo Jr." lamp packaged with a Blu-ray version of the Disney-Pixar "Up." The complaint also cites a new attraction at Walt Disney World that is a six-foot animatronic version of the lamp.

Oslo-based Luxo said in the complaint that the Luxo name hadn't been used on Pixar and Disney products until now and that sale of the Pixar lamps would "cause devastating damage to Luxo and dilute the goodwill which Luxo has built up." The company, in business since 1939, says more than 25 million of the lamps have been sold.

A spokesman for Disney said the company had not seen the complaint and could not comment.

Photo: Father-and-son lamps come to life in the short animated film "Luxo Jr."  Credit: Pixar Animation Studios

-- Richard Verrier

Comments

[Tab Cocovillea]

They are in the right, but they sure took their sweet time to defend their intellectual property.

[Armando]

I guess it was ok... till Disney & Pixar started selling the actual lamps and not sharing the profits.

[Daniel]

Luxo have been talking to Pixar earlier about this, but as long as there has only been animated versions of the lamp, they (Luxo) have shown some goodwill and let it pass.

Now, on the other hand; Pixar are making physical lamps...

That's something completely different..

[Mr Norway]

Actually, I saw an interview with the Norwegian company executive where he said they had been aware of the brand name being used on-screen by Disney/Pixar, and although not approving it they had let it pass as long as no physical competing products had been presented.

However, what has happened now is nothing else than a direct and serious breach of property rights as they are selling the same product with the same functionality and name on the market. It's also pretty rude/arrogant ..

[David H Dennis]

I really wanted to buy the Luxo Jr Lamp + UP DVD set until I saw the price ... $120 from Amazon! Ouch! At least that's down from $140 I remember seeing a couple of weeks ago.

That would be reasonable, actually, if the Luxo Jr was of the same quality as a genuine Luxo, but it looked a bit cheesy from the pictures I've seen. For what I saw, it seems like a great $59.95 novelty bundle trying to be twice what it really is.

No wonder Luxo is suing.

D

[Dirk]

I LOVE Pixar, but seriously, what NERVE they had to do this without Luxo's approval or licensing rights.

[LAJimm]

I wonder why they didn't work with Luxo and have them create the lamp? Win-win for both. Something doesn't make sense. Disney/Pixar is smarter than that.

[Tim]

Oh those silly Norwegians. And what does Mickey think every time Disney sues someone for trying to use Mickey? Or buys off enough Congress people to extend their copyrights on Micky, Minnie, and all the other Disney characters? The irony is rich. We'll see if a couple Norwegians can beat Disney at their own game. I'm shocked, shocked no Disney lawyer objected when plans were drawn up to rip off the Luxo product.

[Ravi Khalsa]

Best publicity ever for Luxo!

[Norman Rogers]

Talk about a missed opportunity. The Pixar name is synonymous, worldwide, with quality animation and film; someone should have locked up an agreement between the two companies years ago to hash out these differences. As a character, the lamp isn't all that and a bag of chips, but as a way of taking an everyday product and making it universal, it's a shame no one thought that they needed to forge a partnership of some kind.

[Carl]

I think Disney will lose this one. I understand why Luxor did not sue Pixar for using their name and lamp in the animation because it will enhance the reputation of their lamp. Now it seems very arrogant of Disney to come out inferior version of Luxor without the Luxor's approval, not to mention no profit sharing.

[Steinar]

Rubber-Tarzan is a danish book, written before Disney acquired the Tarzan "brand", so they could not stop it. But they stopped theatre plays in Norway based on the book Rubber-Tarzan, because they owned the trademark Tarzan. The book and the play had NOTHING to do with Tarzan and would not have any negative effect for Disney what so ever.

But to make a desk lamp called "Luxo jr" based on a Norwegian desk lamp design by Luxo, that is ok?

If Luxo for some reason loose this case, I suggest they start making Mickey Mouse & Donald Duck lamps, and see what Disney have to say about it.

[Jeff]

Why couldn't Luxo just settle this out of court for a piece of the action? Other companies welcome the attention. Look at the "dancing baby" graphic David E. Kelley borrowed for his series "Ally McBeal". The company that produced the critter was ecstatic to have the attention. (Kelley might have asked permission first...maybe Lasseter would have avoided all this tzurris if he'd done that to Luxo way back when.)

[steve humann]

Oh this is delicious. I'm a big fan of Pixar's movies but gosh it's great to see Disney get sued for doing exactly what they're always suing everyone else for. If Luxo had the Disney legal team there never would have been a Luxo lamp in Pixar's logo. The Disney legal team is famous for suing a preschool for hand-painting Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck murals on their walls for decoration. Not to mention the fact that Disney money is behind Sonny Bono's Copyright Term Extension Act aka Mickey Mouse Protection Act, which has extended copyright ownership to ridiculous lengths for the almost exclusive benefit of a few corporations like Disney who own copyrights on ideas that should've passed into the public domain years ago.

[lisa]

I remember when Disney sued a little mom and pop restaurant on Hollywood Blvd. called "Snow White's" put them out of business and onto the streets in like a month, this after a 15 year run. (pre-corporate Hollywood and Highland). Seems odd that Disney would be so off base here.

[Brandon]

Re: 'A spokesman for Disney said the company had not seen the complaint and could not comment.'

So, what does Disney just keep their mail in a big hamper somewhere and forget about it?

[chidiebere]

wow

[carl]

i don't think it is fair

[naomi]

it is fair

[Jake T]

Anyone think Disney would have ever shown the patience and goodwill that Luxo demonstrated?

Or would Disney have viciously sued at the first sign of any infringement, however harmless?

[Arye Michael Bender]

Not without irony. Disney is famous for suing even teachers for using their hackneyed characters for school decoration. Very disingenuous for Disney, after acquiring Pixar, to copy the lamp and actually sell the copy. You'd think they would know a thing or two about copyright protection.

[MarkR]

Any of you still surprised when an unregulated, above-the-law multinational corporation acts this arrogantly?

As long as the people of America and the world have no backbone and allow anybody with money to do any damn thing they please, things will only get worse.