Home 
ZWM Law Firm Site 
By: Mark R. Malek
If you have read my articles in the past, you may have figured out that I frequent the Disney Theme Parks often, and I watch most all of the Pixar movies (see my most recent article about Disney here). I would like to blame that on my kids but, in all honesty, I was a Disney season passholder and a fan of the Pixar movies long before I had kids. I do like most of the Pixar movies (with exception to Wall-E) and, since Steve Jobs was a majority stakeholder in Pixar, I was somewhat saddened by his passing last month.
I came across a story last week in the Wall Street Journal that caught my eye. As it turns out, an oil and gas company in Calgary, Alberta announced that it would organize its oil sands and carbonate bitumen interests into a subsidiary called Pixar Petroleum Corp. Even more interesting, however, is the name of Pixar Petroleum’s parent company – Paramount Resources Ltd. The article went on to note that Paramount Resources Ltd. also has a subsidiary named Fox Drilling Inc., and maintains an interest in MGM Energy Corp.
It seems to me that this is just a group that gets a kick out of choosing names for their companies that are similar to those of the movie industry. Who knows, maybe these folks are big movie fans. It is not as though the names are not famous. Most everyone has seen a movie made by one of these companies in the past few years. Disney Enterprises, Inc. owns a slew of trademarks on the Pixar name. There are several different variations, each directed to the different movies that Pixar has created. It is amazing to me that nobody at Pixar Petroleum stopped for a second and thought, “maybe Disney is not going to like this so much.” Besides Google and probably GE, is there another company that has deeper pockets that you are looking to pick a fight with? Probably not.
I understand that the argument for Pixar Petroleum to attempt to make is that there is no likelihood of confusion between the entertainment industry that Disney is involved in with the petroleum industry that Pixar Petroleum is involved in. The analysis does not end there. There is a trademark dilution issue that has to be addressed. Rene Dial has posted some articles on trademark dilution (see here and here). The Wall Street Journal article cited attorney Gloria Phares who noted that “just because you have a mark in one area, like in animation, doesn’t mean you have a monopoly on a mark.” Gloria’s analysis is correct, but I really hate the use of the word monopoly when referring to intellectual property.
Technically speaking, intellectual property rights do not provide a monopoly to the owner. Instead, it provides the owner with the right to exclude others from using their intellectual property. I know that you are now saying “what’s the difference?” The difference, especially in patent law, is that intellectual property does not give you the right to make and sell whatever you have protected – it merely gives you the right to exclude others from doing so. It is a subtle difference, but it is a difference nonetheless. Over time, however, it seems as though intellectual property owners have tried to over force and over interpret the rights that they have. This behavior is, in my opinion, improper, and is the driving force for much opposition to intellectual property rights. This discussion has to be saved for another article – possibly a series of articles.
Back to the issue at hand – perhaps, as indicated in the Wall Street Journal Article, this was a jab at Disney and Pixar for their recent jabs at big oil. The plot of Cars 2 (which I saw in the theater with my kids…twice) revolved around big oil trying to destroy a new company that was introducing alternative fuel. Yes, it was a bit difficult for the kids to follow, but all is forgiven when Mater does something funny.
