I'm not sure I'd call that overill since it's a pretty egregious copyright infringement. But asking them to destroy the statue is just...it doesn't make sense. The whole museum is a copyright infringement; what's so important about the ginormous one?

People that frequent the museum are probably the same people who obsessively buy Pez dispensers so...

Well, if they are truly suing based on copyright, they've already lost. This is trademark infringement and not copyright infringement, unless the "World's Largest" claim is untrue--because that indicates this is the ONLY Pez dispenser that looks like this.

Instead of suing someone who is giving them free advertising, maybe they should be trying to negotiate some sort of partnership?

@Diet-Orange-Soda: Agreed. Seems like the entire museum is free advertising for the Pez Company, so why shoot themselves in the foot like that?

I always love when people rip off my work and then try to feed me a shovelful of bullshit about how it's "good for me" because it's "free advertising".

Quite a lame defense for blatant theft.

@aguacarbonica: Check out [www.worldslargestdispenserofpez.com]

It's not just "the world's largest PEZ despencer" they are also *SELLING* replicas of TWLPD.

This is copyright, trade dress, and trade mark and it's pretty egregious at that. It's one thing to have a museum, selling official product, even modifying and selling official product is probably OK ( first sale ), but making and selling replica product is way over the line.

@BZMedia: PEZ's brand name is built on a year of nostalgic obsession. morally Pez can be in the right. If the museum if profiting off of the PEZ creation then they should pay some of it to pez. on the other hand fuck PEZ and idiot lawyers.

@BZMedia: With or without the 7-foot tall Pez dispenser, the museum still functions as a destination for Pez customers so the only thing Pez is accomplishing is pissing off a portion of their customers.

@snowmoon: In that case, I support Pez. I was under the impression that the museum had one giant fake Pez dispenser on display, not selling them.

Someone over at the other site said that Pez pretty much has to pursue a case against the museum or else they will lose their trademark protection. Any truth to that statement?

@theblackdog: I've heard this argument before and I don't see how it's even possible. How is it possible for a company to know of every instance of trademark infringement? Pez could just claim they didn't know the museum was using their trademark.

A museum has to be fair use. Now creating pez dispensers that say "Pez" on them with political figures is probably some kind of trademark infringement. But making a large statue of a small dispenser is definitely fair use. If they had to they could call a giant pez dispenser a parody.

@Diet-Orange-Soda: Well, if it's advertised, they can't say they don't know about it. I'm sure they have an internal Pez Archiver, who looks for all things Pez. I mean, it's "The World's Largest", so it's not very obscure.

@theblackdog: Yes, if you don't defend your trademark, you lose it.

@Diet-Orange-Soda: Whether those people become pissed off or not, (very unlikely but irrelevant), you can't set up shop and rip off someone else's material. If it was anyone else, i.e. Pepsi, Coke, Disney, Adobe, Apple, Hershey, Levis, Dyson, Black & Decker, me, etc.... they'd be getting served just the same. When someone steals someone else's work, (and hawking derivatives qualifies) it's not a "favor", it's theft. Plain & simple. If you don't feel that way, then send me your paychecks, because there's no difference.

@BZMedia: I just noticed thanks to Photobuckets new "stats" feature, that people were taking my images, and posting them on other sites, including a photo of myself posted on MySpace, Craigslist, and Facebook. So now I have to watermark all my photos.

@Corporate_guy: they could print the logo on there as "spaz" instead

@Diet-Orange-Soda: They obviously can't be expected to find every infringer on the planet but they can by pursuing those they do find, establish that they are actively protecting their trademark. If they don't defend it, it could fall into generic use.

This museum is also selling unauthorized dispensers by all accounts. Now everyone is saying it is just free advertising. But consider if perhaps a small child (oh won't you just think of the children) is injured by this knock off and their parent gets all sue happy and starts dragging Pez's good name through the mud.

@Chumas: Still a ripoff. You can't sell sugar water under the name Popsi.

What does this have to do with miniature golf?

@BZMedia: obviously you missed the point of sarcasm. >_>

@BZMedia: I just turned of the sugar water machine. Damn

Let's just hope that thing isn't called the "Monster Pez Dispenser"...because they're up shit creek if it is.

@CameraShoe_GitEmSteveDave:
Yipes.
Can you get all your photos off Photobucket? That makes me want to take mine down.

Pez dispensers taste awful and will cut up your gums pretty badly if you don't have sharp teeth and strong molars.

@theblackdog: No. Because they can also grant them a license for use without compensation.

@HiPwr: But springs = fiber!

Can't they just rename the place "The Tiny Chalky Candy Museum?"

@theblackdog: copywright and trademarking are two separate deals. you can lose a trademark for not suing you keep a copyright as long as it's valid. If they are suing for copyright it's wholly a separate matter.

@Hank Scorpio: Who's to say that isn't coming? Pez has some great leverage now.

On the other hand, who's to say that Pez didn't already try a negotiation and the museum balked?

@TheyCallMeStacey_GitEmSteveDave: Or, you could sue them for copyright infringement.

@BZMedia: Do you recognize that just because an entity CAN do something, legally or otherwise, that it might not be in its best interest?

@Diet-Orange-Soda: But Pez can say the exact same thing about the museum. Pez wants to run its product the way it wants to run it. That includes having a say on what types (or sizes) of dispensers are made. Pez has every right to say that the *museum* is "pissing off a portion of their customers" by making bizarrely-sized dispensers and calling them Pez.

Think of it this way: Making a giant Pez seems innocuous enough, but according to your argument, the museum could just as easily make erotic pez dispensers or pez dispensers with depictions of violence on them. After all, some Pez fan is going to love that. Pez probably doesn't. There might be some fair use with that (such depictions are probably a commentary on something), but simply using an established or trademarked style in a new work tends to be infringemnet (see Dr. Suess v. Penguin Books: [caselaw.lp.findlaw.com]). This is the reason why copyright cases are not decided merely by who gets pissed off. It's decided by determining if someone owns a copyright and if someone infringed on that right (including the right to prepare derivative works based on the copyrighted work).

On the other hand, I really wish that Consumerist or SOMEBODY would find the actual complaint in this case. This whole thing seems like a trademark issue. The actual complaint might shed more light on this. Copying the Pez logo is a copyright infringement (and it's on the museum's giant Pez). But it might be trademark infringement, too (the museum is using the Pez name and mark to bring paying customers into the museum).

@Smashville: +1 for that.

I can see both points of view here and maybe it's the opinion of the Pez company that the museum has gone a bit too far by producing unauthorized Pez products. It's a slippery slope between promoting collector interest in something and producing knockoff merchandise for your own personal gain.

I would think the best thing for a first step would be for Pez to politely ask that they not alter Pez merchandise and maybe just ask them to put a disclaimer up next to the giant non-Pez-manufactured dispenser. It would seem to me that there's benefit to both parties if they can work something out (the museum does hawk authentic Pez merchandise).

My non-legal, non-professional opinion would be..let the giant statue stay, have the museum put a small disclaimer on the wall next to it, and for the museum to stop selling non-authorized/bootleg stuff.

Jesus, I can't believe I just wasted 20 minutes of my life over Pez.

I am just scratching my head over whether a pez dispener is copyrightable. I guess maybe it is if you view it as a creative expression. The counter argument is it not a creative expression, it is a purely function design for the dispensing of candy. Industrial designs are not copyrightable under US law.

As for the giant pez dispenser, they have no grounds for having it destroyed. They can sue for damages. The damages are either profits or statutory damages. The question would be how much money has the Pez Museum made from just having the largest pez dispenser. The museum wouldn't be liable for just displaying real pez dispensers. Only profiting from pez dispensers that were made illicitly, i.e., in violation of pez's copyright.

The trademark claim would be more viable. However, in order to protect their trademark all they would have to do is license the name to the museum, they wouldn't have to sue for it. If they didn't license it or enforce their trademark they would run the risk of the word "pez" being generic for a springloaded candy dispenser, which would kill their trademark. It is called genericide in the trademark world.