In another case of “why’d it take so long to do that,” the Dutch company who owns the “Miffy” rights has won a copyright infringement lawsuit against Sanrio for a bunny character that looks a little too much like theirs. Dick Bruna, the guy who created Miffy like 45 years ago, has openly accused Hello Kitty of copying his style for, well, probably since Hello Kitty came out in 1974. Bruna’s Miffy hasn’t always looked like this, however; he changed her design to the current one in the 60’s.
So okay, that’s 10 years ahead of Hello Kitty. One can only imagine how long Bruna waited for Sanrio to royally screw up and come out with a bunny character so he can sue the pants off Sanrio. And so they did. Hello, Kathy…
But here’s the kicker: Kathy first came on the scene in 1976! She’s one of Hello Kitty’s oldest friends. Sanrio has just now been ordered by an obviously higher than a kite Amsterdam court to cease and desist on all Kathy merchandise in Luxembourg, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Honestly, I don’t get it. This design is so simple, it’s like trying to copyright a circle or a square. I mean really, how many characters out there can be said to look like Miffy? What about Pucca?
Good luck suing Disney. Here’s my take: Miffy is hugely popular in Japan. The franchise has made loads of money there off Miffy over the years not just from merchandise but TV shows as well. Hello Kitty is a Japanese cultural icon. Is it worth the risk of an entire country’s boycott over a character that’s been around for 30+ years anyway?
[Sources: Guardian UK, Anime News Network]
Loading ...
I Like Soop
Jan 28, 2011 -
First, Miffy and Kathy do not look exactly alike, aside from the fact that they are both rabbits, therefore, have the same features (ex: ears). Second, Kathy looks like a bunny-form of Hello Kitty: face-shape, eyes, nose, no mouth, and same art style. I do not think HK and Miffy art styles are exactly the same, but they are similar. However, that doesn’t matter anyway because they’re both attacking different groups of potential buyers.
Kathy is girly, Miffy is boyish-cute. Miffy is more aimed towards boys or tomboyish girls (this is a generalization). And Kathy is aimed more towards girly girls. I like Miffy, but I would not buy Miffy merchandise, because he (or she?) is not girly or my taste. I like Kathy because she is girly and my taste. Even if you destroyed every HK/Kathy item in existance, I would still not buy Miffy merchandise. Because of this obvious differentiation, the whole lawsuit was pointless and ultimately for one reason. Money.
It’s not uncommon for people to gather inspiration from other peoples’ work and turn it into something of their own. It’s not copying, but it may give ideas. Even if Kathy was the result of inspiration extracted from Miffy, there is still a difference and a different fan base. Also, imagine how many other people who have created similar characters? There are so many people in the world, someone is bound to have the same or a similar idea. And bunnies are profitable; they are one of the most popular animals to reformulate into a franchise, because people like them so much!
It looks rather bad that NOW the lawsuit was made when the character has been around for a long time and already has a happy fan base, satisfying children.
It is not Sanrio’s fault that Miffy doesn’t have the same worldwide success. Maybe if the hobo-looking t-shirt was pink…
Nameless
Jul 9, 2011 -
I agree with I Like Soop. I’ve seen Miffy doll in some shops & it’s not appealing to me at all that I didn’t buy it. Even if Hello Kitty & her friend, Kathy, doesn’t exist in this world, I would NEVER spend a single dime on Miffy stuffs! People should also check-out how Miffy has a similar art-style as Musti.