Disney has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Phase 4 Films, creator of the upcoming film “Frozen Land.” Disney claims that Phase 4 Films named the film “Frozen Land” to trade off of Disney’s popular film, and Oscar contender, “Frozen.” Though the film was previously released under the title “The Legend of Sarlia,” Disney contends that Phase 4 Films redesigned the artwork, packaging, logo, and other promotional materials for its newly (and intentionally misleadingly) retitled film to mimic those used by Disney for FROZEN and related merchandise.
This case is interesting because, generally speaking, movie titles do not indicate the source of goods or services and, therefore, are generally unregisterable as trademarks. Movie merchandise, however, can serve as a basis for a trademark application. Additionally, under copyright law, copyright protection does not extend to short names and phrases. It will be interesting to see how the California federal court handles this case.
Trademark law requires that a mark function as a source identifier — it must tell consumers who is behind a product or service. A single movie title does not typically meet this standard because it refers to one specific work, not an ongoing source of goods. The USPTO regularly refuses single title registrations on this basis. Series titles, by contrast — such as “Star Wars” or “Harry Potter” — do qualify for trademark registration because they identify an ongoing series from a consistent source.
Disney’s enforcement strategy in the “Frozen Land” case did not rest on a trademark registration in the word “Frozen” alone. Instead, Disney’s strongest claims arose from trade dress — the overall visual presentation of a product’s packaging, including color schemes, font styles, character imagery, and layout. Trade dress is protectable under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)) even without registration, provided it is inherently distinctive or has acquired distinctiveness through use, and is non-functional.
The theory of passing off — or, in Lanham Act terms, false designation of origin — is precisely what Disney alleged here. When Phase 4 Films redesigned “The Legend of Sarlia” with “Frozen Land” branding that mimicked Disney’s distinctive visual identity, it created a false impression that the film was associated with or sponsored by Disney. Consumers browsing a video shelf might reasonably believe “Frozen Land” was a Disney sequel or spin-off, particularly given the timing of its release in relation to Disney’s “Frozen.”
Courts evaluating trade dress claims assess whether the trade dress is distinctive (inherently or through secondary meaning), non-functional, and likely to cause consumer confusion. Disney’s “Frozen” trade dress — including the distinctive blue-and-purple color scheme, the snow-and-ice visual motifs, and the stylized typography — had become widely recognized by consumers. Demonstrating that consumers were likely to associate similar visual elements on a competing product with Disney was not a difficult argument to make.
The “Frozen Land” lawsuit illustrates several important lessons for brand owners and the businesses that seek to profit from well-known brands. First, intentional mimicry of a famous brand’s visual identity is a risky strategy that courts view skeptically. Second, trade dress protection can extend the reach of trademark law to visual elements that would not independently qualify for word mark registration. Third, the availability of merchandise registrations — for the branded goods sold in connection with the film — gives major studios a broad platform for enforcement that goes beyond the film title itself.
For smaller businesses, the lesson is different: be careful about branding choices that echo or parallel a well-known brand, even if the word marks are different. If your product’s visual presentation is likely to cause consumer confusion with an established brand, you may face trade dress claims regardless of whether your name or logo is literally the same.
If you have been targeted by a trademark infringement lawsuit, or if a third party has infringed on your rights, contact the trademark lawyers at Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
The Disney v. Phase 4 Films dispute illustrates the entertainment industry’s aggressive posture in protecting its most valuable franchises. Major studios and their parent companies maintain large trademark portfolios covering not just the core film and television brands, but also the merchandise, theme park attractions, and ancillary products that generate substantial portions of their revenue. Trademark enforcement in the entertainment industry therefore involves not just the brand names and logos, but also character names, catchphrases, visual elements, and trade dress associated with the franchise.
For independent filmmakers, distributors, and content creators, the practical lesson is to conduct rigorous brand clearance before committing to a title, logo, or visual identity. Searching the USPTO database for existing trademark registrations is only the first step — a comprehensive clearance also examines common-law uses, domain registrations, social media handles, and existing film and television titles through entertainment industry databases. Revision Legal provides clearance services for independent content creators and helps small studios navigate the legal landscape without the legal departments available to major studios.
If you have been targeted by a trademark infringement lawsuit, or if a third party has infringed on your rights in the entertainment industry, contact the trademark lawyers at Revision Legal today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form.
Revision Legal is a national intellectual property and internet law firm that represents clients across the United States in trademark, copyright, trade secret, and internet law matters. We are a firm of specialists — not general practitioners who handle IP work as one component of a broad practice, but attorneys whose entire professional focus is on the intersection of technology, creativity, and commerce.
Our attorneys have handled cases at every level of the federal court system, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We manage trademark portfolios for hundreds of clients, ranging from individual entrepreneurs registering their first mark to publicly traded companies maintaining global trademark portfolios across dozens of countries.
We believe that access to expert legal counsel should not depend on the size of your organization. Revision Legal’s flat-fee service model for routine IP matters — trademark registration, copyright registration, DMCA notices, and standard licensing agreements — allows small businesses, startups, and individual creators to access the same quality of legal representation that larger companies receive, at a price that is predictable and fair. For complex litigation and contested proceedings, we work efficiently to achieve the best possible outcome for our clients while managing costs responsibly.
Whatever your intellectual property or internet law need — whether you are protecting a new brand, enforcing your rights against an infringer, defending against a legal demand, or navigating a complex licensing transaction — Revision Legal has the expertise to help. Contact us today at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form to discuss your matter.
Revision Legal’s attorneys bring deep subject matter expertise and practical experience to every engagement. We have helped hundreds of Michigan and national clients protect and enforce their intellectual property rights, navigate complex internet law issues, and build legal frameworks that support long-term business success. Our flat-fee service model for standard IP matters ensures that you know exactly what representation costs before we begin, with no hourly surprises. For complex litigation and contested proceedings, we bring the same focus on efficiency and client value that defines our practice across all service areas.
We also understand that legal issues in intellectual property and internet law often require speed. An infringing product launch cannot wait for a drawn-out legal process. A DMCA notice that takes three weeks to draft and send provides much weaker protection than one sent promptly and properly. Revision Legal’s attorneys are accessible and responsive — when you have an urgent IP or internet law issue, we are ready to move quickly on your behalf.
Whether you are a Michigan startup protecting a new brand, an established company dealing with an infringement problem, or an individual facing a legal demand, Revision Legal has the expertise and the commitment to help you achieve the best possible outcome. Contact us at 855-473-8474 or through our online contact form today.
Defendants in trademark infringement cases have several affirmative defenses available. Here’s an overview of the most common defenses, from fair use to laches to acquiescence.
Read more about Affirmative Defenses in Trademark Infringement
Nominative use allows referencing another’s trademark to describe their product. Here’s how courts distinguish protected nominative use from infringing uses across different circuits.
Read more about Nominative Use or Trademark Infringement?
The M22 trademark dispute between a Michigan brand and the State of Michigan attracted national attention. Here’s the background on how the M22 brand was built and defended.
Read more about What’s Up With the M22 Trademark?