muggles, the term

[Amy Z]

No: HPFGUIDX 12745

Heidi wrote:

My understanding is that the MUGGLE doll mark was 
> registered by Margaret Lynden and then assigned to Muggles Magical 
> Toys, who has a registration to use the mark for Printed Materials, 
> Namely, A Series Of Childrens Fiction Books, Posters, Calenders And 
> Stationery, Clothing, Namely, Blouses, Skirts, T-Shirts, Sweat 
> Shirts, Caps, Coats, Shoes And Socks; Clothing Accessories; and 
Dolls 
> And Doll Accessories. They also own a bunch of pending applications.
> My understanding is that Nancy Stouffer is trying to have this 
> registration cancelled. Her first application was filed in 1993, so 
> this usage really DOES predate JKR's, and she did use the mark - 
and 
> SHE isn't causing a egomaniacally groundless suit to be brought 
> against JKR because *she* sees the difference in their usages.
> 
> And to complicate things further, there's a piano bar with the name 
> MUGGLES which was registered in *1981* for Retail Gift And Novelty 
> Shop Services, And Restaurant And Night Club Services, and which is 
> owned by some California corporation called MUGGLES. THEY predate 
> everyone.

Heidi, help us out here--isn't it all but impossible to trademark a 
term like this?  Especially since it's been around for years with 
many other meanings; the drug reference, e.g., is decades old--muggle 
has meant marijuana since before JKR was born.  (Hmmm...Muggles, 
Hooch...is there a subliminal, unwholesome message in these books?  
j/k!)

So doesn't Stouffer have to prove much more than "she uses the term 
Muggles and I use the term Muggles" in order to have a case?  And 
does it help JKR that someone else has already been using the term 
Muggles for something completely different?

Feel free to tell me to wait for the FAQ.

Amy Z