No one faces more video patent lawsuits than Disney, but Disney has its own history of vigorous IP enforcement, including injunctions

The purpose of this article is to show that Disney is not always a defendant to IP cases. Much to the contrary, the company has a long history of enforcing its rights around the globe. And through industry associations Disney has undoubtedly pushed for strong IP enforcement in jurisdictions that were previously criticized for insufficient IP protection, such as Brazil.

Recent Brazilian cases

São Paulo

• Case no. 1092118-47.2015.8.26.0100 (Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Alexandre Bueno Biondi and Teatro Ressurreição): Copyright infringement action involving unauthorized Frozen-themed theatrical performances. The court granted a preliminary injunction ordering the defendants to cease producing, performing, promoting, and advertising the shows.
• Case no. 1010151-77.2015.8.26.0100 (Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Anderson Fiorese Produções ME): Copyright infringement action involving an unauthorized Frozen-themed theatrical production. The court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendant from producing, promoting, or performing the show.
• Case no. 4046495-54.2025.8.26.0100 (pre-transfer) (Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Marco Emiliano Macedo Padua): Intellectual property infringement action concerning the unauthorized use of Disney characters and trademarks in the Happy Land amusement park. Disney sought injunction relief requiring the defendant to stop using its intellectual property, remove infringing content, and pay contractual penalties. The case was later transferred to the Goiás State Court, where the parties reached a court-approved settlement.

Rio de Janeiro

• Case no. 0129178-04.2017.8.19.0001 (Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Jafer Comércio Exterior Ltda.): A search-and-seizure order was granted and later confirmed by final judgment against Frozen-themed products.
• Case no. 0118419-49.2015.8.19.0001 (Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Solid Global Trading EIRELI): A search-and-seizure order was granted against Frozen-themed products.

Select U.S. cases

• Disney Enterprises, Inc., Paramount Pictures Corp., Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., Universal City Studios LLC, Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc., et al. v. VidAngel, Inc. (case no. 2:16-cv-04109-AB-PLA (C.D. Cal.); appealed: to 9th Cir. in 2017): Copyright infringement and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) § 1201 anti-circumvention violations regarding an online service decrypting DVDs/Blu-rays to stream filtered versions of films. The federal district court issued a preliminary injunction ordering VidAngel to stop decrypting discs and streaming films. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, and a jury subsequently awarded Disney and co-plaintiff studios $62.4 million in statutory damages.
• Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC (case no. 2:17-cv-08655-DDP-AGR (C.D. Cal.)): Copyright and trademark infringement over Redbox’s practice of purchasing physical combo packs and reselling the standalone digital download codes enclosed within them. Although the court initially denied Disney’s preliminary injunction on copyright misuse grounds, the court later granted Disney a preliminary injunction after Disney updated its packaging terms. The case concluded with a Stipulated Consent Judgment and Permanent Injunction prohibiting Redbox from selling Disney digital codes.
• Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC v. Mouseprint Media, LLC, Eric A. Wichhart, et al. (case no. 6:19-cv-02318-RBD-GJK (M.D. Fla.)): Trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and unfair competition stemming from unauthorized commercial apparel and merchandise using altered Disney and Star Wars character imagery (doing business as “Disgear”). Disney secured a Consent Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, ordering the defendants to cease manufacturing and selling the infringing merchandise, turn over domain names, and destroy remaining physical stock.
• Disney Enterprises, Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. LLC, and Lucasfilm Entertainment Co. LLC v. The Secret Dis Group LLC, Popsella Inc., Christopher B. Martin, and Hannah Martin (case no. 6:22-cv-02417-RBD-LHP (M.D. Fla.)): Trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and federal copyright infringement involving unauthorized commercial rental services using Disney marks, logos, and proprietary materials to run an unlicensed concierge business targeting Disney parkgoers. The court entered a Permanent Injunction and Final Consent Judgment, permanently restraining the defendants from using Disney-owned trademarks, domain names, or copyrighted artwork.
• Walt Disney Productions v. The Air Pirates, et al. (case no. C-71-1345-RHS (N.D. Cal.); appealed to the Ninth Circuit in 1978): Landmark federal copyright and trademark enforcement action against an underground comic book publisher for creating explicit parodies using classic Disney characters (Mickey Mouse, Minnie Mouse, Goofy). The Ninth Circuit held that cartoon characters with distinct visual and personality traits are copyrightable, and rejected the defendants’ fair use and First Amendment parody arguments, entering an injunction and damages award in favor of Disney. The appeals court affirmed the district court’s finding of copyright infringement and injunctive relief, but reversed and remanded on the separate trademark infringement and unfair competition claims for further market confusion analysis.

Different categories of IP

There obviously are differences between copyright, trademark, and patent cases. But what Disney has in common with video patent holders is that its business critically depends on IP protection, be it through damages claims and/or injunction requests.

The above cases are not simple piracy cases in the form of copying Disney movies or comicbooks. Disney enforced its rights against more or less transformative forms of use such as live performances or satire. That is not to say that Disney should have tolerated infringement. In fact, when trademarks are at issue (which applies to a subset of the above cases), sitting by idly is not even an option unless one wants to jeopardize the enforceability of those rights.

Disney and other video streamers are generating substantial revenues from their services, using (according to certain courts that have already ruled on specific complaints) technologies that others invented. At some point, Disney will take licenses from certain pools and from companies like Ericsson and InterDigital, as it did from Adeia less than a year ago (December 22, 2025 ip fray article).

Disney is not always on the receiving end.