John William Kaipo Enos v. The Walt Disney Company
2:23-cv-05790
C.D. Cal.May 23, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs John William Kaipo Enos and Johnson Entertainment, LLC claimed copyright and trademark rights in a blue-eyed, ukulele-playing Hawaiian turtle character named "Honu."
- Defendants The Walt Disney Company and Disney Enterprises, Inc. created a blue-eyed turtle character called 'Olu Mel, part of the Duffy and Friends line, with development beginning in 2015 and public release in 2018.
- Plaintiffs alleged Disney unlawfully copied the Honu character's distinctive elements in their creation of 'Olu Mel.
- The first publicly released depiction of Honu playing a ukulele was in April 2016, after Disney had already created sketches and digital images of 'Olu Mel with a ukulele.
- Plaintiffs brought claims for copyright infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act; Disney moved for summary judgment on both claims.
- The case was decided on summary judgment without oral argument, with the court determining no genuine dispute of material fact existed for trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Copyright infringement (timeline) | Disney's character was not public/complete until after Honu's depiction in 2016 | Disney's character was developed and fixed prior to Honu's ukulele depiction | Disney's 'Olu Mel was created prior to Honu's depiction; cannot infringe a later-created work |
| Copyright infringement (musicality) | Honu was a music-loving turtle prior to ukulele depiction | No evidence Honu had a musical trait before 2016 | No evidence Honu was musical before 2016; only aggregate of blue eyes+ukulele is protectable, which Disney predated |
| Lanham Act: Laches | Laches disfavored; Disney's ongoing conduct continues harm | Enos unreasonably delayed—waited 5 years, with Disney prejudiced | Enos’s claim barred by laches: unreasonable delay and harm to Disney established |
| Lanham Act: Trademark Strength | Honu is distinctive and has commercial value | "Honu" is descriptive, weak commercially and conceptually | Mark is conceptually and commercially weak; factors weigh in favor of laches |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard under Rule 56)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (materiality and burden in summary judgment)
- Christian v. Mattel, Inc., 286 F.3d 1118 (prior-created works cannot infringe later-created works)
- Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829 (laches as a defense to Lanham Act claims)
- Au-Tomotive Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1133 (presumption of laches for Lanham Act claims)
- Miller v. Glenn Miller Prods., Inc., 454 F.3d 975 (prejudice necessary for laches)
- Pinkette Clothing, Inc. v. Cosm. Warriors Ltd., 894 F.3d 1015 (E-Systems factors for laches in trademark cases)