[pbhjpbhj]

>With or without copyright extensions that daycare center will never have Mickey Mouse cartoons on the wall without Disney's express permission. //

Trademarks are supposed to be to indicate the _origin_ of goods or services. The use of an image of a mouse on a nursery wall is highly unlikely to create any confusion in anyone of sound mind that Disney are providing the service of that nursery - if there is a potential for doubt then a simple disclaimer can alleviate that (yes on the wall if necessary).

After copyright expiration of the original cartoons from which a Mickey Mouse like image might be copied there is no reason that a sane application of trademark law would prevent a nursery from using such an image.

Now "famous" marks often get special treatment but this swings both ways. If you don't use an actual Disney mark [as opposed to a simple image of one of their characters which isn't a trademark] then people know that it's not actually from Disney. Indeed just being affordably priced is sometimes all the indication that one needs.

[dfc]

Are you unfamiliar with the actual case of the daycare center that Disney went after?

[pbhjpbhj]

Yes, could you link me up please? Was it by any chance settled.

However, it's not at all a surprise to me. I would note that I say "there is no reason that a sane application of trademark law would prevent a nursery from using such an image" (emphasis added).