In a decision most law students are likely to want to read, the dispute between "Pull My Finger Fred" and "Fartman" is now resolved. It certainly brings the tone of copyright discussions down a meaningful peg.
The appeal of JCW Investments Inc v Novelty Inc was decided Wednesday by the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit. The original dispute was provoked by what the Plaintiff, Tekky Toys, perceived to be an alarming similarity between their star flatulist, "Pull My Finger Fred," in the product of Novelty Toys. Tekky Toys produces the charismatic "Pull My Finger Fred," while Novelty Toys produces the less subtle "high street" version, "Fartman." As Wood J stated, "Fartman could be Fred's twin."
Fred's repertoire, when one pulls his finger, includes, "Did somebody step on a duck?", "Silent but deadly", and other oldies but goodies. Fartman's slightly more limited repertoire included two of Fred's jokes.
After the success in the district court of the claims for copyright and trade mark infr
ingement, as well as unfair competition, the 7th Circuit affirmed: "it turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls, and it is quite lucrative," stated Wood J. Apparently Tekky Toys produces a whole line of farting dolls, "Fred was just the beginning."
ingement, as well as unfair competition, the 7th Circuit affirmed: "it turns out that there is a niche market for farting dolls, and it is quite lucrative," stated Wood J. Apparently Tekky Toys produces a whole line of farting dolls, "Fred was just the beginning."One wonders if there is more litigation to come (see right).
Did somebody step on a duck?
Chuffies in Court
Reviewed by Johanna Gibson
on
Friday, March 23, 2007
Rating:
Reviewed by Johanna Gibson
on
Friday, March 23, 2007
Rating:
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn 
![[Guest post] Thou shalt not discriminate the Lego block over any other kind of product – GRUR speaks out on C-211/24](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJYQUJNvYydrZcjwSHPuxd14xX3_48aBusHKBogY-Wg1BPSJSABbFFjmGiUV3aqG2npP9xYaIl1vtWK5AsqGOQPgRD2TWFLhyyc4xGm1fHDD-tt9kHcrSSgAyju2P9wSKz0VW6h7D5MD4Hxd9vREyxKYzlMRNXxxtxc3DiNsXppfVaxgSxAMV/s72-c/21742619125_7c9e53cd39_o.png)
![[Guest post] Comparison of wine and gin: the EUIPO’s unquestionable Similarity Tool](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiNfTEBXiPVS0XjZi4mNE1OtXLxXiEp1PUgcUK7MMMXlfyTkO5SMXv-VCMXXNdS_F1XdMMxYca1VbBTGvvDeTVpo5x-5YwR7atQJmK3x32T8LACpf4308kht3nEtaxPwEPcGGrB0s5xjGktmQPOiVwPVLRO5JbW19qupc7xUtiVutvaWHow0OpBkA/s72-c/Picture%201.jpg)
![[Guest post] Muddying the waters of copyright – a rapid reaction to today’s IPEC decision which sees the sinking of the WaterRower’s claims for copyright protection](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7chFANC7ppmZl4_nlR6_hZEcg6cOhVEJNVXqki4p82BoVlcLFotuOXzHWYD5lKLiiK_kRoWeXmJjjaV2DpoKsAWq8U3LFioO5W_841a9gcfDIFjvZWcGqfnr0jWJNtyXptIYR_8bxCssaDkJ9KMokuSqy1g65Il7p2hPwo4MfRCEGoUPQJesvbg/s72-w400-c-h189/Screenshot%202024-11-11%20at%2018.20.45.png)
Posts
No comments:
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.
It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.
Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html