## Facts

- DC Comics had long marketed and licensed the entertainment characters Aquaman (since 1941) and Plastic Man (since 1967) through comic books, animated television, and merchandise.
- Aquaman was depicted as an underwater hero with a female companion (Mera) and a walrus-like companion (Tusky).
- Plastic Man was depicted as a crime-fighter able to stretch and assume shapes while retaining the color and design of his costume.
- Filmation, a television producer, had previously created an Aquaman animated series for DC under a 1967 contract; in 1976 DC granted Filmation an option to produce a Plastic Man show, but Filmation did not exercise it.
- In 1978 Filmation broadcast two animated series on CBS and licensed related merchandise: *Manta and Moray* (underwater hero Manta with female companion Moray and walrus-like companion Whiskers) and *Superstretch* (a stretch-powered hero).
- DC sued, asserting Lanham Act claims and New York unfair competition, plus contract-based and confidential-relationship theories, alleging Filmation copied DC’s characters and exploited DC’s goodwill in television and merchandising.
- A jury found Filmation liable on seven of eight claims and awarded over $1.2 million total damages (Aquaman-related and Plastic Man-related).
- Filmation moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (Rule 50(b)) and for a new trial (Rule 59), challenging liability and damages; DC sought permanent injunctive relief and other equitable remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether entertainment character names, visual appearances, costumes, and related identifying features are protectable as source-identifying symbols under the Lanham Act and New York unfair competition law, as distinct from unprotectable character ideas or abilities.
2. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to sustain the jury’s liability findings across the asserted Lanham Act, unfair competition, contract, and confidential-relationship theories.
3. Whether the jury’s damages awards were supported by non-speculative proof of actual confusion and actual economic injury, or instead required remittitur or a new trial on damages.
4. Whether equitable relief—including an injunction, destruction or sequestration of materials, and attorneys’ fees—should be awarded in addition to money damages.

## Decision

- The court held that a character’s name, visual design, costume, and other identifying “ingredients” may function as symbols of origin and are protectable under the Lanham Act and related state law; abstract abilities and generalized traits are not.
- The court denied Filmation’s motion for JNOV on most liability findings, leaving the bulk of the verdict intact.
- The court granted JNOV on one claim: breach of a confidential relationship as to *Manta and Moray*, finding the proof insufficient.
- The court found substantial portions of the damages award excessive and speculative and ordered a new trial on damages for the *Superstretch* claims unless DC accepted a remittitur reducing those damages to $221,339.
- The court granted injunctive relief restricting continued exploitation of the infringing characters but denied attorneys’ fees and declined to order broad destruction of Filmation’s materials.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act protection may extend to entertainment characters when their names and consistent visual and identifying elements operate as indicators of source or sponsorship (trademark/trade dress).
- Trademark and unfair competition law do not confer exclusive rights in generalized character concepts, ideas, or functional traits (e.g., “underwater hero” or “stretching ability”) apart from protectable identifying expression.
- Likelihood of confusion can support liability under the Lanham Act, but substantial monetary awards require credible, non-speculative proof connecting infringement to actual confusion and measurable economic harm (or reliably attributable profits).
- Post-trial relief permits setting aside unsupported verdict components (JNOV) and correcting excessive awards through remittitur or a new trial on damages.
- Injunctive relief may be appropriate to prevent continuing consumer confusion and harm to goodwill, even when damages are reduced; attorneys’ fees are not awarded absent an exceptional showing.

## Conclusion

The court treated DC’s character names and visual “ingredients” as protectable source identifiers under federal and state law, upheld most liability findings, rejected one confidential-relationship theory for lack of proof, limited speculative damages through remittitur or a new trial on damages, and ordered injunctive relief while denying attorneys’ fees and broad destruction remedies.


DC Comics, Inc. v. Filmation Assocs., 486 F. Supp. 1273 (S.D.N.Y. 1980)