Phoenix Ent. Partners, LLC. v. Rumsey Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. v. X One X Productions One trademark casebook was quick to juxtapose these two cases.68 Dastar held that a trademark claim could not be used for what was really a copyright issue, the allegation that copies of public domain copyrighted films were sold in a way that mislead the public, because they were not sold by the former copyright holder. Dastar rejected that theory, because otherwise trademark could be used to give the equivalent of copyright protection. In Phoenix, a vendor of karaoke tracks sued bars that used copies of those tracks, made without the vendor's permission. The vendor did not claim copyright in the karaoke tracks, but alleged trademark infringement, because its trademark would appear to users when the tracks were played. The court rejected the claim, reasoning that consumers would not be confused about who produced the tracks, rather that the trademark claim sought the equivalent of copyright, the exclusive right to perform the works in public. X One X, by contrast, applied trademark to elements from copyrighted works. The defendants licensed well-known phrases and character images from such works as Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, and Tom and Jerry cartoons, to the discernment of Warner Brothers, who owned the relevant copyrights. In addition to copyright claims, Warner Brothers brought trademark claims. Unlike the content of the copyrighted works in Dastar, however, those phrases and character images had been used for trademark purposes and registered as trademarks. Analyze and present your interpretation oftheabovecase.