Chickasha Leg Lamp Lawsuit: Warner Bros. Claims and Defenses

The Chickasha leg lamp lawsuit does not yet exist. Warner Bros. Discovery has demanded that the Chickasha Community Foundation remove and destroy the 50-foot fiberglass replica of the A Christmas Story leg lamp that stands in downtown Chickasha, Oklahoma, alleging copyright and trademark infringement, but as of mid-2026 no case has been filed in state or federal court. The sculpture is still standing, the foundation has refused to take it down, and the two sides have not spoken since the foundation’s attorneys responded to Warner Bros.’ demands in October 2024.¹

What Warner Bros. Is Claiming

Warner Bros. put the foundation on notice long before the sculpture went up. On January 7, 2019, Steven Fogelson, then vice president of business and legal affairs for Warner Bros. Consumer Products, wrote to Oklahoma City intellectual property attorney Evan Talley denying the foundation’s request to participate in or fund the project. The letter stated that the studio “reserves all rights in and to ‘A Christmas Story’ and all copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual property rights” associated with the film.² A separate 2019 communication from an attorney advising the project warned that Warner Bros. “will almost certainly seek to enforce their copyright.”³

The community built the lamp anyway. It opened in Downtown Depot Park on November 5, 2022, funded by $1.4 million in private donations.⁴⁵ In the summer and fall of 2024, Warner Bros. escalated. A formal letter to the Chickasha Community Foundation demanded that the sculpture be “removed and destroyed,” alleging copyright infringement related to both the statue and merchandise sold at a nearby visitors center.³ A reservation-of-rights document dated October 2, 2024, from Markel Service (acting for Evanston Insurance) named both Warner Bros. Entertainment and Turner Entertainment as claimants and alleged the foundation had “utilized derivative copies of props and trademarks” from the film.¹

The studio’s legal theories are stacked. Warner Bros. has cited the Lanham Act, alleging unauthorized use that causes consumer confusion and brand dilution. It has pointed to specific design elements it considers direct lifts from the film: the black fishnet stockings, the lampshade seams, the fringed trim, and a base marked “FRAGILE.”⁶ The studio has also alleged unjust enrichment tied to merchandise sales and accused the foundation of using the “WB shield” trademark on gift shop items.⁷ Turner Entertainment holds federal trademark registrations related to the leg lamp, including U.S. Registration No. 3,364,542.

What the Foundation Is Arguing Back

Jim Cowan, executive director of the Chickasha Economic Development Council and a representative of the foundation, has led the public defense. His core points are that the lamp is public art with no admission charge and that the gift shop sells officially licensed merchandise rather than knockoffs. “We’re not charging admission to see the leg lamp, anybody can come and take a picture,” Cowan told KFOR. He has also said the foundation consulted trademark specialists before building the sculpture.⁸

The most distinctive argument is sovereign immunity. The lamp sits on land owned by the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma, and Cowan has stated that “public universities are immune from trademark infringements because of when they use art.”⁸ That theory draws on the broader doctrine of state sovereign immunity, which the Supreme Court reaffirmed in Allen v. Cooper (2020) and which generally prevents federal courts from hearing damages suits against states without their consent. Congress has been unable to strip states of that immunity through legislation like the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act, because courts have found no widespread pattern of state copyright infringement to justify abrogation under the Fourteenth Amendment.⁹

How Strong Are the Foundation’s Defenses?

The sovereign immunity argument has real limits. It would most directly protect USAO itself, not a private foundation that merely placed a structure on university land. And even if monetary damages were off the table, a copyright holder can still seek injunctive relief against state officials under the Ex parte Young doctrine to stop an ongoing violation of federal law.⁹ In practical terms, that means immunity might block a check from being written but not necessarily an order to take the lamp down.

Whether the sculpture qualifies as fair use under 17 U.S.C. § 107 would turn on the four standard factors: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used, and the effect on the market for the original.¹⁰ The foundation’s position that the lamp is noncommercial art would help on the first factor. Cutting the other way: the sculpture closely replicates the film’s design, and the foundation has claimed its visitors center was the top U.S. retail outlet for officially licensed A Christmas Story merchandise during the 2023 holiday season.³

Where the Dispute Stands

After the foundation’s attorneys responded in October 2024, Warner Bros. went quiet. Searches of the Oklahoma State Court Network and the federal PACER system have confirmed that no litigation has been filed between Warner Bros., Turner Entertainment, and any Chickasha-area entity.¹ The studio has not responded to media inquiries about the dispute.¹¹ The foundation has said it has no intention of removing the lamp. “We don’t believe we did anything wrong,” Cowan told The Oklahoman.⁵

Chickasha Mayor Zachory Grayson has said the city itself is not a party to the dispute and has expressed hope that the two sides can reach an agreement, adding: “The only people who win in lawsuits are lawyers.”¹¹

Why Chickasha Won’t Back Down

The economics explain the standoff. Cowan has described tourism as being at an “all time high,” crediting the lamp as a key driver alongside the town’s annual Festival of Light, which draws more than 250,000 visitors each holiday season. Business developer Chet Hitt has invested millions in downtown renovations and a business park, citing the visitor traffic the landmark generates.¹² With that much local money riding on the sculpture and Warner Bros. showing no sign of filing suit, the lamp stays lit.

1
Chickasha News. No Lawsuits for Chickasha Leg Lamp, EDC Says
2
Southwest Ledger. 6 Years Later, Chickasha Leg Lamp Controversy Continues
3
The Oklahoman. Will Chickasha Have to Take Down Famed Leg Lamp Statue
4
Chickasha Community Foundation. Downtown Depot Park
5
The Oklahoman. Chickasha Leg Lamp Still Standing
6
Inside Lighting. Warner Bros. Threatens Lawsuit Over 40-Foot Tall Leg Lamp
7
Southwest Ledger. Despite WB Letter, No Litigation Pending on Chickasha Leg Lamp Statue
8
KFOR. Warner Bros. Demands Removal of Chickasha’s Iconic Leg Lamp
9
U.S. Copyright Office. Copyright and State Sovereign Immunity Report
10
Cornell Law Institute. 17 U.S. Code § 107 – Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use
11
KOKH Fox 25. Chickasha Leg Lamp Warner Brothers Discovery
12
CBS News. Giant Leg Lamp Lights Small Oklahoma Town