Could an argument be made that since Disney has never defended this, then they have no right to complain now? (At least trademark is supposed to work that way - you lose it if you don’t actively enforce it).
That’s an oft repeated myth, but it’s not quite true.
From an article by the EFF:
> The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. Genericide […] is very rare […]. Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
Not tattoos, but games look at a similar situation with videos and streaming, most companies welcome the free advertising or encourage it heavily. But there are gaming companies famous for exercising a strong grip on content creation, most prominently japanese companies likes ATLUS [1].
It took less than a minute for one of the security people (dressed in an old-timey police uniform, of course) to come over and tell him to put his shirt back on, in a tone and cadence which made it sound like this wasn’t the first time the two of them had had this interaction.
Anyway what I’m saying is, as far as I know he wasn’t bound and gagged and hauled off before a Disney magistrate.
Has there been any previous case law on whether or not this is allowed?