Artist claims she owns rights to Angry Birds line of toys

A US pet care company has been sued by a painter who claims she lost out on millions of dollars after the rights for an Angry Birds themed design were sold without her permission.

Juli Adams claims she was the original designer of a line of toys for animals called ‘Angry’ that featured birds as well as other animals and that she was asked to make a range by New Jersey-based Hartz Mountain Corporation.

According to a lawsuit, filed at the US District Court for the Western District of Washington on Monday, (August 4), Hartz entered into an exclusive agreement with Adams in November 2006, three years prior to the release of the popular video game produced by Finnish-based Rovio Entertainment.

The agreement said there would be “no transfer of ownership” of the Angry Birds IP, according to the lawsuit.

The complaint alleged Hartz went on to use Adams’ design and trademarked the name ‘Angry Birds’ for classes including pet toys, stopping Rovio from expanding its worldwide franchise, which already included clothing and other merchandise.

Hartz eventually ended its agreement with Adams in 2012 but “leveraged a deal” with Rovio to sell Rovio-branded Angry Birds toys, the complaint added.

“A comparison of a Hartz Rovio-themed pet toy and a Hartz Juli Adams pet toy reveals the toys had nearly identical colour and eye shape, and the font used in the packaging was essentially the same,” the complaint said.

It added: “On information and belief, Hartz simply transitioned its employees that had been working on the design, marketing, and packaging of the Juli Adams pet toys to the same functions with the Rovio-themed pet toys”.

Hartz continues to sell the Angry Birds pet toy line “without any legal rights” to the trademark or any approval from Adams, the complaint added.

It added that Hartz had not made a royalty payment to Adams since 2011 which was for $40.66.

Anthony Shapiro, partner at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, the law firm representing Adams said that based on the “international success of the Angry Birds video games”, it believed Hartz had made “tens, if not hundreds” of millions of dollars from sales of the pet toys.

Adams is claiming damages for trademark infringement, false designation of origin and breach of contract.

Hartz did not respond immediately to a request for comment.