Potter names

[plinsenmayer at yahoo.com]

Original Yahoo! HPFG Header:
No: HPFGUIDX C773
From: plinsenmayer
Subject: Re: Potter names
Reply To: [Yahoo! #769] Re: Potter names
Date: 3/30/00 9:05 am  (ET)

<Maybe Penny can help on this but from what I've heard the only
similarities are the names. As far as I'm concerned taking three names
doesn't qualify as plaigarism. If Stouffer actually has been granted a
trademark on the word "Muggles" though that might be a different story.>

Well, first the names are *similar* but not exact. Potter as a surname
is relatively common in any case. I think that part of it is strictly
coincidence. Scholastic did a good job in their press release of making
it clear that JKR had not been to the US prior to her first book
tour over here in late 1998 (one of Stouffer's contentions is that
Rowling did a student exchange program in Baltimore, which was close
enough in Stouffer's mind to PA, which is where Stouffer's books were
distributed). Don't know where Stouffer's attys came up with the theory
that JKR had been here on an exchange program, but for Scholastic to
affirmatively state that she had not been is pretty clear.

Trademark -- Stouffer applied for a trademark to the name muggles. In
February 2000. Need I say more!! The complaint filed with the court is
largely full of facts that make a weak attempt to establish that Stouffer
had a trademark by virtue of her pattern of usage of the word -- but this
argument only has merit if the word "muggles" was already associated with
Stouffer's works in the minds of the general public. That's a stretch
since her books were only distributed for a limited time and in a very
limited geographic area (and never by any major or middling bookstores
-- only grocery stores and the like). I would expect her trademark
application to be denied and for the lawsuit to be dismissed post haste.

It's definitely an attempt to cash in on the "mother lode" as you said
Skimmel. AND sour grapes as well!

Penny