Morgan and Morgan is a plaintiffs firm specializing in personal injury (though they have other areas of practice). For those not familiar with the US system, if someone hits a victim with their car, a victim slips and falls in a store, etc. and the victim sues, Morgan and Morgan commonly handles that type of case for the victim. Basically the usual "Americans will sue each other for anything" type of law firm (though I don't strictly mean that to be criticism). Morgan & Morgan's business model places a heavy emphasis on convincing the defendant to settle before litigation. They also depend heavily on advertising. Regardless of what happens next, this story is a free "Morgan and Morgan stands up to the big guy for you" headline.
Apropos of nothing, the firm's founder, John Morgan, has been instrumental in attempting to legalize marijuana in Florida, which some have identified as a potential, but very funny, conflict of interest given the type of work Morgan and Morgan does.
This is basically what we have in the US instead of a strong regulatory state. One of the few ways consumers might seek justice against a giant corporation.
I think when places have such huge advertising budgets does that means you're paying more or getting less. Do you think that applies to law firms like Morgan and Morgan?
And it's advertised relentlessly on Youtube like Honey, BetterHelp, SurfShark, NordVPN, RocketMoney, Incogni, and Ground News so it's probably trash too.
Good change it’s all for free press. Morgan and Morgan is huge, and John Morgan is toying with a run for Florida governor. He was a big force behind a marijuana legalization push, first medical, then recreational.
Title is incorrect. The firm isn't taking Disney to court. They are asking the court to look at their ad and confirm that it doesn't infringe on Disney's trademark, thus shielding themselves from future lawsuits from Disney.
Isn’t Disney a party to the declaratory judgment action which Morgan and Morgan filed, but without Disney having chosen to include itself in the action? That counts as the firm taking Disney to court.
Am I wrong in thinking this makes more sense than decades/centuries long copyrights?
Let the copyright on a work expire so I can share my copy of Toy Story with my friends, but retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies (or theme parks or pajamas).
That was the plan for years now. They made steamboat willie a part of their animation wing's trademark more than a decade ago: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MJkQ-1Jvf0g
> Hmmm this is a preemptive lawsuit from Morgan and Morgan for clarity, which seems to be in bad form
Not a lawyer, but to bring a lawsuit in the US you typically have to show that you've suffered a real injury that the court can remedy. How can Morgan and Morgan establish standing here?
> demonstrating Disney’s continued protection of its intellectual property rights despite the copyright expiration
That's some insane mental gymnastics. If copyright expired the IP is no longer theirs. And they don't protect but make extortion attempt under false pretense instead with use of fraudulent claims.
The suit is about trademark. Whether it'll fly or not is up in the air, but that's the reason that Disney actively made the "Steamboat Willie" version part of their pre-film branding.
Lawyers aren't expected to know the law outside of their specialty, but a law firm that doesn't understand basic trademark law is probably not a firm you want to trust with your legal matters, because it indicts a failure to perform even the most basic due diligence.
Lego already tried this approach and it doesn’t work. You cannot use trademark law to extend expired patents or copyrights.
The real ad here is them baiting Disney and running this fairly open and shut case. Of cause they can use public domain material in their commercial and Disney can’t prevent them.
flkiwi|5 months ago
Apropos of nothing, the firm's founder, John Morgan, has been instrumental in attempting to legalize marijuana in Florida, which some have identified as a potential, but very funny, conflict of interest given the type of work Morgan and Morgan does.
technothrasher|5 months ago
To be fair, "ambulance chaser" lawyer or not, over 90% of civil cases in general in the US settle before a trial commences.
softwaredoug|5 months ago
hearsathought|5 months ago
They are all over social media ( tiktok,youtube ) crime videos. Never heard of them until I started watching crime videos online.
> Apropos of nothing, the firm's founder, John Morgan, has been instrumental in attempting to legalize marijuana in Florida
Makes sense. There is some correlation between drug use and crime.
raybb|5 months ago
burnt-resistor|5 months ago
wingspar|5 months ago
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/05/15/john-morgan-florida...
paxys|5 months ago
jkaplowitz|5 months ago
xnx|5 months ago
cognomano|5 months ago
hamdingers|5 months ago
Let the copyright on a work expire so I can share my copy of Toy Story with my friends, but retain a trademark on the characters so that I can't go around making new Toy Story movies (or theme parks or pajamas).
joecool1029|5 months ago
gpm|5 months ago
yieldcrv|5 months ago
Morgan and Morgan should just launch the commercial, it sounds hilarious
5f3cfa1a|5 months ago
Not a lawyer, but to bring a lawsuit in the US you typically have to show that you've suffered a real injury that the court can remedy. How can Morgan and Morgan establish standing here?
scotty79|5 months ago
That's some insane mental gymnastics. If copyright expired the IP is no longer theirs. And they don't protect but make extortion attempt under false pretense instead with use of fraudulent claims.
shmerl|5 months ago
crooked-v|5 months ago
unknown|5 months ago
[deleted]
gamblor956|5 months ago
klustregrif|5 months ago
The real ad here is them baiting Disney and running this fairly open and shut case. Of cause they can use public domain material in their commercial and Disney can’t prevent them.
nomel|5 months ago