By John McKechnie AO, KC
In 1937, a manufacturer of radio sets wanted to market them under the names Mickey Mouse and Minnie Mouse.
Walt Disney naturally opposed this course and won on all levels.
Poor old Mickey however in winning, had to endure some judicial contempt.
Although the Chief Justice, Sir John Latham thought Mickey and Minnie were two fantastic and amusing characters (a fan), Sir Owen Dixon described the grotesque forms and absurd antics of both (not a fan).
Sir George Rich had a bit each way saying Disney had “obtained great reputation or notoriety for the form and name of Mickey Mouse”. Sir George, perhaps mindful of a tendency for judicial ignorance, now thankfully long gone, thought it prudent to add “Minnie Mouse, his feminine counterpart”.
So Mickey, whose features appeared on everything from canned soups to cotton undershorts, from bridge scorers to boys’ braces, triumphed.
I wonder what he would have thought of the New Zealand would-be politician who changed his name to ‘Mickey Mouse’ and campaigned on the slogan, ‘Put a mouse in the house’.
(Adapted from Radio Corporation Pty Ltd v Disney (1937) 57 CLR 448)
