Also, this seemingly establishes that the Hatmobile is NOT the character owned by DC, merely an imitation. That would seem to skirt the legal tests applied in the lawsuit very helpfully linked by Tradewinds309 yesterday.
“On appeal, the Ninth Circuit said the Batmobile itself was a character and analyzed its ability to receive protection using a three-part test: (1) whether the character has physical as well as conceptual qualities; (2) whether it is sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears; and (3) whether the character is “especially distinctive and contains ‘some unique elements of expression.’” The court answered all three questions in the affirmative, noting for instance that the car has received physical manifestation in movies and comics and that it has a highly recognizable name.”
The Hatmobile has no physical qualities, it’s just a drawing in a comic strip. Nobody will recognise it as the Hatmobile. And it has nothing distinctive about it as an individual; it just looks like the OTHER car.
(I’m not a lawyer, though I do have an LL.M. This is not legal advice to anyone.)
On April 27th the Hatmobile was missing a licence plate, but obviously someone noticed because it’s had one each time the rear has been shown since then.
The lack of a licence plate, and probably no rear brake lights or indicators, I think the street-legal answer must be a resounding NO. Seatbelts? The rocket exhaust would probably require some explanation too, assuming it isn’t just a dummy.
The upside of checking some luggage is that, if you get stuck in security of whatever, the plane cannot leave until they’ve found and unloaded your bags, so you get a somewhat better chance of making the flight. Waiting five minutes for you to arrive is better than the cost and time of unloading the hold which might cost them their take-off slot entirely.
Also, this seemingly establishes that the Hatmobile is NOT the character owned by DC, merely an imitation. That would seem to skirt the legal tests applied in the lawsuit very helpfully linked by Tradewinds309 yesterday.
“On appeal, the Ninth Circuit said the Batmobile itself was a character and analyzed its ability to receive protection using a three-part test: (1) whether the character has physical as well as conceptual qualities; (2) whether it is sufficiently delineated to be recognizable as the same character whenever it appears; and (3) whether the character is “especially distinctive and contains ‘some unique elements of expression.’” The court answered all three questions in the affirmative, noting for instance that the car has received physical manifestation in movies and comics and that it has a highly recognizable name.”
The Hatmobile has no physical qualities, it’s just a drawing in a comic strip. Nobody will recognise it as the Hatmobile. And it has nothing distinctive about it as an individual; it just looks like the OTHER car.
(I’m not a lawyer, though I do have an LL.M. This is not legal advice to anyone.)