Casting a Shadow on the ‘Winnie the Pooh’ Brand

By David Pridham* 

When I was a child, my family would gather to watch Disney’s Winnie the Pooh movies and television series. We read Pooh books and had tons of Pooh merchandise. My children, too, enjoy Pooh so much that our son has a Winnie the Pooh-themed bedroom and each of our kids has dressed as Pooh characters for Halloween. Disney has even built Winnie the Pooh rides at its theme parks. But recent events have cast a dark shadow on the Pooh brand and called into question the ability of companies to create and protect their iconic brands from poaching. 

Winnie the Pooh is a treasured collection of stories about a mischievous teddy bear named Winnie the Pooh and his friends, and was written by A.A. Milne and illustrated by E.H. Shepard in the 1920s. Some of the stories in the collection included “Winnie-the Pooh” (1926) and “The House at Pooh Corner” (1928). In 1961, Walt Disney Productions licensed the rights to the Winnie the Pooh books and characters from Milne’s estate in exchange for the payment of royalties to the estate. Since then, Disney has released a number of films, television programs, books, and other merchandise tied to the Pooh brand. The commercialization of the Pooh brand has generated hundreds of millions of dollars for Disney globally and resulted in the payment of tens of millions of dollars to the Milne estate. 

In late 2021 the copyright protecting the Pooh stories and characters, belonging to the Milne estate and licensed to Disney, expired. This is due to the fact that in the U.S., copyrights expire 95 years after the publication of the first story subject to the copyright — which was in 1926. This copyright expiration made the Pooh brand ripe for exploitation. And the market did not disappoint. Enter Winnie-the-Pooh Blood and Honey — a slasher film depicting Pooh and Piglet as vicious mass murderers. In this film, many are killed by this pair — who are decked out in the traditional Pooh and Piglet garb. Obviously, the audience for this film does not overlap with the audience of the classic Pooh but the use of the Pooh brand in a horror (rather than a family) film does clear damage to the Pooh brand. 

“Back to the 100 Acre Wood” has never had such a dichotomy of meaning. Back when we were young this term would evoke warm memories of children gathered around to hear the latest stories of Winnie the Pooh, Piglet, Tigger, and Eeyore. Disney World’s Winnie the Pooh ride is a favorite for families young and old as these characters helped shape all our childhoods. It’s tough for anyone who views the Blood and Honey trailer to reconcile these slasher images with the classic, lovable Pooh. All of the Pooh Bear nostalgia comes under attack as these iconic characters are part of this slasher film targeted not to newborns and toddlers but to blood-thirsty moviegoers. How did this happen and what can companies do to protect their brands from similar apparent misuse? 

Simply put, U.S. copyright law, alone, is not a sufficient vehicle to protect iconic, multi-generational brands from abuse. Disney and the Milne estate chose only to protect Pooh with copyrights. The result was catastrophic, leading to the current situation where Pooh and Piglet are engaged in a murderous rampage and anyone may exploit the Pooh brand in the United States (note that the Milne estate still enjoys copyright protection in the United Kingdom until 2027 as U.K. copyrights run for 70 years from the death of the author). This has forced other companies to develop multi-level strategies to protect their brands from similar attacks. 

Allowing companies to protect iconic children’s brands such as Winnie the Pooh is crucial in order to encourage creation and to reward artists. This is what U.S. intellectual property law was meant to protect — artists, innovators and creators whose work, absent protection, are subject to potential misuse by others. Insulating those that create from those that seek to “free ride” is at the bedrock of our intellectual property regime. This approach begs the question, what about other iconic Disney brands such as Mickey Mouse?   

In anticipation of the problems with the Pooh brand (and the eventual expiration of the copyright protection), Disney has employed a multi­-pronged IP protection approach to ensure that other brands will be protected. For example, Disney has utilized a combination of trademark protections on its flagship Mickey Mouse characters. This trademark protection of words and designs does not expire so long as the mark continues to be used in commerce. So far, this strategy has worked as Disney has thousands of IP lawyers around the globe exclusively focused on protecting the Mickey Mouse brand. 

We are in the middle of a great technical revolution, where multi-platform brand exposure is critical for success. For example, it’s now common for brands to be introduced in books, movies, television programs, on websites, in apps, Tik Tok videos, reels, podcasts, and many other channels. As brands are made available on these platforms, protecting the underlying intellectual property is even more important. Copyrights are not enough to protect brands — and the use of trademarks is critical if you want to avoid the fate of Winnie the Pooh. 

*David Pridham (pictured above) is founder and CEO of Dominion Harbor Group, a global licensor of patented technology on behalf of Fortune 500 clients. He is also co-author, along with his wife Emberli, of the book series If Not You, Then Who?, which is currently being adapted into an animated series under the guidance of children’s television executive and producer Sander Schwartz. Pridham has no involvement with Winnie and has prepared this piece as an illustration of what could happen. 

Please follow and like us: