Interim Ruling-- what in the sam hill is this?

[rainy_lilac at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 12573


I emailed Heidi about this but haven't heard from her yet.

I am a little perturbed that the judge did not simply dismiss this 
nonsense. Those of you who are lawyers in this forum: what do you make 
of this thing? Maybe my legalese is not up to snuff.

Meanwhile on my end: I have failed utterly in my attempts to find any 
existing copy of any of Stouffer's texts. Usually I am the kind of 
person who can find anything, anywhere. *Shrug* Makes me wonder if 
they exist at all frankly. 

Onward to more enjoyable topics....

Thanks!

Suzanne





--- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidi tandy <heiditandy at y...> wrote:
> You can read a summary of the decision at
> http://ipcenter.bna.com/pic/document/1,1103,1_765,00.html
> The ruling was a mixed bag for Scholastic/JKR.
> In summary, the court held that Stouffer has the right
> to present evidence supporting her copyright and
> trademark claims but not about her defamation and
> tortious interference with contract claims. 
> 
> 1. The court dismissed Nancy's misrepresentation
> claims but allowed her to replead them as false
> designation of origin claims (which is identical to
> trademark claims). The specific allegations in this
> counterclaim do not involve any false representations
> per se, but rather allege that the Harry Potter books
> misappropriate certain aspects of Stouffer's books.
> The counterclaim points to: (1) "Muggles" as the name
> of non-magical characters; (2) the "Harry Potter" and
> "Lilly Potter" character and names (similar to
> Stouffer's "Larry Potter" and "Lilly Potter"
> characters); (3) the "Nelville" character and name
> (similar to Stouffer's "Nevils" character); (4) the
> "Keeper of the Keys" (similar to Stouffer's "Keeper of
> the Gardens"); and (5) "Nimbus" for a flying broom
> (similar to Stouffer's "Nimbus" for a flying warrior).
> 
> 
> 2. Judge Schwartz held that Stouffer alleged
> sufficient facts to support each of the reverse
> palming off elements. Stouffer alleged that each of
> the marks, character names, and likenesses were
> published in her literary works; that Scholastic used
> the works as its own in promoting its services; that
> consumers have falsely associated her works with
> Scholastic's works; and that she has suffered
> irreparable harm and damages.  This doesn't mean that
> she proved them or has any evidence to support her
> allegations. All it means is, she said "this is this,
> and that is that."
> 
> 3. The court did dismiss Stouffer's claims for
> defamation and tortious interference with prospective
> business relations as inadequately plead. 
> 
> Full text at http://pub.bna.com/ptcj/9911480.htm 
> 
> 
> 
> =====
> heidi tandy
> 
> What Maureen Dowd thinks David Souter was thinking on Monday, 
December 11, 2000: I know the Bushes are furious at me. That'll teach 
'em to assume that a guy living like a monk in an isolated New 
Hampshire farmhouse is some kind of Live Free or Die nut.
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online!
> http://photos.yahoo.com/