Without having heard the submissions or having seen the evidence, the IPKat doesn't want to hold out too much hope for either claimant. JK Rowling may find herself up against the transformative use defence, which seems to be riding high as a fair use doctrine in the United States these days. Meanwhile, the Conrans have to concede that Havas is legally entitled to use the name, which he lost in 1990 -- though he is reportedly willing to pay "a modest amount of money" to buy it back. Merpel adds, you can take precautions to keep your name -- registering it as a trade mark is one, and not assigning it to someone else is another -- but there's not much you can do to guard against fair use defences to copyright infringement.
The Kats will keep an eye or two on developments, and will report back in due course.
The Harry Potter case reminds of:
ReplyDeleteCASTLE ROCK ENTERTAINMENT, INC. v. CAROL PUBLISHING
In that case somebody created a book with trivia questions on Seinfeld. IRC, the publisher lost that one. See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/150_F3d_132.htm