Copyright, Trademark and Willy’s Chocolate Experience
If you have been on the internet at any point this past week, you have undoubtedly heard about the “Glasgow Willy Wonka Event” as many are calling it.
Formally entitled Willy’s Chocolate Experience, it was meant to a kid friendly experience where visitors could, “Dive into the whimsical of Willy’s Chocolate Experience, a place where chocolate dreams become reality.”
However, it turned out to be far less than magical as visitors were greeted with a largely empty warehouse filled with cheap props, sparce decorations, few actors, no chocolate, and a strict limit of two jellybeans per child had ticket holders, who paid £35, (roughly $45) per ticket, were fuming.
The event was so bad that customers called the police on the event to demand refunds. They said that they were misled by AI-generated art, which was used to promote the event. The event itself was cancelled early and the organization behind it, The House of Illuminati, has said that they will be refunding tickets.
But what the event failed to deliver in quality or entertainment, it has definitely provided in the form of memes and jokes. From the Sad Oompa Loompa to The Unknown appearing behind a mirror, the event has been a gold mine for social media, news sites and now Plagiarism today as well.
However, behind the memes, the AI generated art and the allegations of scamming, there is an interesting set of issues when it comes to intellectual property.
That is because the original book by Roald Dahl, first published in 1964, is still very much protected by copyright. The same is true for all the movie adaptations that have come since. The name Willy Wonka (or just Wonka) is also heavily trademark protected, with Warner Bros. owning many of the rights and Ferrero owning others.
How did this unsanctioned event escape becoming a copyright or trademark infringement? Well, it likely didn’t. But that does not mean that they did not try.
How Not to Avoid an IP Issue
Stephen Findeisen, better known as Coffeezilla, posted a video on his Voidzilla channel about the event where he highlighted the many ways that the organization attempted to skirt copyright and trademark issues.
First is that, even though most people have simply been calling the production the “Glasgow Willy Wonka Event,” the actual title of the event is “Willy’s Chocolate Experience.” Note that it does not use the name “Willy Wonka.”
Instead, the actual lead character is named “Willy McDuff.” Likewise, the “Oompa Loompa” character is referred to as “Wonkidoodle 2”. Other elements from the productions, including “The Unknown” were not from any of the original books or films.
All the art for the event, as well as the script, was generated by AI and. Though clearly inspired by other Willy Wonka works, did not copy from them directly. None of the other characters, such as Charlie or Grandpa Joe (I guess they weren’t that evil), were part of the Glasgow event.
It is clear that the goal of the event was to make sure that everyone believed or at least thought it was an official Willy Wonka event without using the name, characters, logos, etc. Assumedly they thought that this would protect them from any intellectual property litigation.
The problem with that is that neither copyright nor trademark solely protect the exact words or phrases. Instead, they protect a lot of the intangible elements that were clearly on display.
Why This Was a Bad Idea
Note: The event happened in the UK. However, my familiarity is with the US law in this space so I will be talking from that vantage point. Though the broad strokes should be the same, there may be some differences.
Copyright, as we have discussed previously, is not simply the right to copy a particular work. It is a series of rights including the right to publicly display/perform the work, most important to this story, the right to make derivative works.
Also relevant is that copyright does not just protect the work itself, but the characters in it. We have seen this recently with issues involving Sherlock Holmes and Steamboat Willie falling into the public domain. It is the first time that others have been able to create new works based on those characters without the fear of committing copyright infringement.
This poses a significant problem for the Glasgow event as the only thing that distinguishes “Willy McDuff” from “Willy Wonka” is the character’s last name. Both are chocolatiers that run a magical factory with similar outfits and mannerisms and speech patterns. It is obvious that Willy McDuff is substantially similar to Willy Wonka and would likely be considered a derivative of it.
For the “Wonkidoodle,” things get even worse as, according to the actor, they purchased an Oompa Loompa costume for the event. Once again, everything other than the name is identical including the job, the place of work, the appearance, and general mannerisms.
Claiming that your work is legally distinct from the source material does not really work when it is so clear that the “new” creations were so closely based on the original characters. Oddly, the only thing that is not likely copyright infringing is “The Unknown,” which is a completely original “character” to this event.
But, as bad as things are on the copyright side, they get even worse on the trademark side.
That is because trademark law is not meant to prevent copying. I can say “Willy Wonka” and “Wonka” as many times as I want in this post because I am not using the trademarks to imply a relationship that does not exist. I am just talking about the marks themselves.
Trademark is meant to prevent confusion in the marketplace and the fact that so many people, myself included, have called it the “Glasgow Willy Wonka Event” is an extremely strong signal that there is confusion in the marketplace. In short, it is almost certain that some of the ticket buyers made their purchase thinking this was an official Willy Wonka event and it is difficult to deny that was the organizers’ intent.
Between the name, use of colors, fonts, themes and so forth. There is not much arguing that the organizers implied a relationship with Willy Wonka that did not exist and, judging from the response, it is equally hard to deny that it did not cause confusion.
Bottom Line
In the end, the thing that may best protect the organizers of the event is the fact that it was such an epic failure. If this had been a commercial and critical success, it is highly likely that various rightsholders would have come out of the woodwork to demand their cut but, as a financial failure mocked widely online, I doubt that any will be so bothered.
Besides, the failure and the memes have made it clear that this was a cheap knockoff with no actual connection to Warner Bros., Ferrero or the source material. Between that and the likelihood that there is no damages that can likely be collected, a lawsuit seems unlikely.
That said, it is sad that the abject terribleness of the event completely overshadowed its IP issues. While it is great to laugh at the event and how lame it was, it raises some serious copyright and trademark issues that deserve to be addressed.
That said, if we are being serious about the event, it is even more important to acknowledge that the event does have real victims. First are the attendees who paid real money for tickets to an event that was nowhere near what was advertised.
However, the actors involved are, by all accounts, also victims. As of this writing, they have not been paid the promised amount and were also misled about the nature of the event.
In short, this event was simply a grift from top to bottom. It used AI-generated images and text to promote an event that was nowhere close to what was advertised. To make matters worse, it likely violated both copyright and trademark in doing so, harming the rightsholders and creators who made the original works.
Though the IP issues may be secondary to the more pressing ones, they are still worth noting. Especially if anyone is considering hosting a similar event (let us hope not).
Want to Reuse or Republish this Content?
If you want to feature this article in your site, classroom or elsewhere, just let us know! We usually grant permission within 24 hours.