at *9. Other U.S. federal courts have found that a trademarked name as part of a product’s title does not convey information about a product’s origin as long as defendants employed their own source designations elsewhere on the product. See, e.g., Mattel, Inc. v. Walking Mountain Productions, 353 F.3d 792, 807 (9th Cir.2003) (denying application of Lanham Act to photos of Barbie with “Barbie” in photo descriptions because the photographer put his own name on the photos and produced them on his own web-site); Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994, 996-97 (2d Cir.1989) (finding that the film title “Ginger and Fred” did not mislead as to sponsorship because, in part, it indicated that it was created and directed by Italian filmmaker Federico Fellini); Thoroughbred Legends, 2008 WL 616253 at *9 (<HOLDING>). The test, then, is whether the alleged
holding that failure of indictment to include the defendants name was not fatal because the original complaint that initiated the prosecution properly listed the defendants name and the record indieated that the defendant  knew what he was charged with and what facts the charge was based upon holding that an action brought in the name of a person adjudicated as incapacitated instead of in the name of her guardian cannot be corrected as a misnomer recognizing as a matter of federal law that an action to redress injuries to a corporation cannot be maintained by a shareholder in his own name but must be brought in the name of the corporation holding that the name under which a debt collector is licensed to do business is the debt collectors true name for purposes of the fdcpa holding that a movie studios name on the dvd cover  and not a horses name in the title of the film  conveyed information about the films source andor origin