|
JANUARY 29, 2004 at 10:01 AM
Posted by CHEESER
Source: Entertainment Law Digest
A $50,000 sanction and dismissal of claims against Harry Potter from challenger Nancy Stouffer has been upheld
by a federal appeals court:
The appeals court agreed that Stouffer's claims were properly dismissed because "no reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the two parties' works." The appeals court explained, "Stouffer's and Plaintiffs' marks are used in two very different ways. Rowling's use of the term "Muggles" describes ordinary humans with no magical powers while Stouffer's "Muggles" are tiny, hairless creatures with elongated heads. Further, the Harry Potter books are novel-length works and whose primary customers are older children and adults whereas Stouffer's booklets appeal to young children. Accordingly, the District Court correctly dismissed Stouffer's trademark claims."
Stouffer was hit with a $50,000 sanction in the original ruling, which has been upheld, because the judge concluded that Stouffer had "perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony."
She had introduced several altered pieces of evidence in her case, including supposed original documents that experts proved had been modified years after their printing to include the word "Muggle". Stouffer is also responsible for undoubtedly sizable attorney's fees for both parties in the original case and this appeal.
Reader Comments (101)
click to read...
Your Thoughts
click to write...
Copyright © 2002-2010 HPANA. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. 
HPANA is an unofficial fan site, in no way affiliated with J.K. Rowling,
Scholastic Books, Bloomsbury Publishing or Warner Bros. Entertainment. All
trademarks and copyrighted material are the property of their respective owners.
About HPANA | Movie 6 | Send a news tip | Contact us | Privacy policy
Quidditch Captain
Points: 6166
Alex Seeker says:
I haven't really been following this story but it's good that they found in favour of JKR - Potter will always be hers!
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 10:17 AM EST
Order of Merlin, 1st Class
Points: 1908
Opera Ghost says:
Serves her right! I hope she appeals or sues again, she will lose and owe even more money! Who would want to read something written by someone who has NO BRAIN???!
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 10:20 AM EST
Professor
Points: 1155
MissMaryPotter says:
Okay the author of that book has to be stupid not to think legal action wasn't going to be taken. I don't care how off your spoofing is, but a spoof called Larry Potter containing references to beings as "Muggles" is not coincidental; it's an obvious use of copyrighted materials, and this person trying to make money off of someone elses idea by means of spoofing. I''m so glad this woman lost! She should just be fined for stupidity.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 10:24 AM EST
Prefect
Points: 372
//cleo\\ says:
I haven't really been following the story either but I'm glad that they ruled in favour of JK! Harry Potter is the best and I don't think that anyone else even had the same idea as her...^_^
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 10:25 AM EST
Chief Brain Washer
Points: 2881
Chogiiiirl says:
This woman has to be mad, to sue for the word "muggle" and to go up against someone such as JK Rowling. How thick can you be? I'm glad they came out in favor of Potter!
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 10:33 AM EST
Animagus
Points: 19544
Sirius-Ella says:
L.O.L I bet if she wasn't a greedy little git..she wouldn't have sued for J.K. using the friggen word "muggle" (rolls eyes).
-sirius-ella-
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 10:48 AM EST
Points: 7828
Rococoed says:
I also haven't been following this case recently, but I am glad they found in favor of J.K. Rowling. Nancy deserves to pay the sanction for commiting fraud after she altered evidence in order to support her case. Her decision to sue J.K. Rowling for copyright infringement was done prematurely...
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:00 AM EST
Witch
Points: 910
BlueFlame says:
Um, that's one tiny word... who really would care if she did copy it from her, I mean what's the big deal? And if she did end up sueing Jk or whatever- does she think then she'll be popular for it? So many people (especially kids) would hate her.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:06 AM EST
Auror
Points: 2287
Snufflesmom says:
I'm glad they upheld the sanction. Ms. Stouffer had better be glad she wasn't put in jail for fraud.
This is a good decision by the Appellate Court and I am glad JKR and Scholastic won.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:13 AM EST
Points: 790
M. Sebastian says:
JKR probably never ever heard of this author, let alone copying anything from her. I doubt JKR cares about the monetary award, but certainly it is a part of vindication for her. She'll probably end up giving it to another one of her many charities.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:17 AM EST
Professor
Points: 1065
Lerah99 says:
She altered documents that she submitted as evidence to the court??!!!?? Her lawyer must be royally pissed. She's lucky she's only getting fined and not being thrown in jail. The judge must have taken pity on her due to her obvious pathalogical stupidity.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:25 AM EST
Head of Gryffindor House
Points: 3725
Professor McGonagall says:
I haven't really been following the story either. I don't know how JK does it, it must be so stressful to know that people are trying to steal your idea and then have the nerve to bring her in court.That Stouffer woman is so arrogant. Larry Potter ?? Who's the best friend: Don instead of Ron ??
Peeelease !!
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:27 AM EST
Magical Creature
Points: 3064
Phoenix Feather says:
Good. It's not nice to try to perpetrate a fraud on the courts, is it?
And since this woman basically published her own works, it became obvious that she altered them to include things that weren't in them originally. Shame, shame!
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:38 AM EST
Auror
Points: 2034
Professor Snape says:
Good thats awesome news. gotta try to show people that it isn't worth trying to make a quick dollar of someone elses successes. people are so quick to go sue somebody else, its ridiculous and disgusting.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:46 AM EST
Veela
Points: 3404
*venus* says:
GOOD!! Looks good on her. I really dislike "money-grubbing" individuals that try and leach onto the accomplishments of others. I love justice ;)
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 11:53 AM EST
Auror
Points: 2170
HogwartsWitch says:
I only recently became aware of this and I'm really glad that the courts upheld the sanction. It's disgusting when other people try to cash in on someone else's success. I'm really happy for JKR!
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 12:00 PM EST
Gryffindor Chaser
Points: 3637
Angelina Johnson says:
How dare she? Bringing JK to court? What the hell was she thinking? I think that woman is on strong medication! Poor JK, having to endure all these idiots!
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 12:09 PM EST
Witch
Points: 908
ICEMICE says:
Its not unusual to see people trying to cash in on the name and prestige of the Harry Potter series and its nice to know that the law has stamped down on this one attempt. Good works for the court. And a very hearty Thank God its over for JKR.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 12:13 PM EST
Witch
Points: 681
SiriusLove says:
There's a saying in my office: "It should hurt to be stupid." If that were true, wouldn't more people think twice about doing something so ridiculously moronic?
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 12:17 PM EST
High Inquisitor
Points: 23488
KT Lady says:
heh heh..This story just makes me laugh. Im guessing my reaction to this article should be positive? Hmm..
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 12:48 PM EST
Student
Points: 231
Libby Potter says:
Well, lying is always hurtful especially when you are the one lying and it is taken to court. I feel the court ruling was just and the verdict a lesson this lady wont soon forget.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 12:51 PM EST
The Girl Who Lived
Points: 4219
Tacha says:
This is the first time I heard that someone was claiming that JK stole the word 'muggle'. That's sooooooo low. One; the meanings are completely different, two; JK probably never read her book and three; this is just a pathetic atempt to make money through another persons succes.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 1:00 PM EST
Wizard
Points: 814
Keeper Of The Dragons says:
Oh my gee wizz it is only just one word even tho its made the one a bunch more money then the other but still who cares about it she should of just went to JK in the first place and just asked for so money i'm sure she would of gaven some you know $50 that seems fair to me HA but now the crazy person hs to pay tones more and she lost oh well all i will do i laugh and sit in the nice warm bed and watch the movies and when ever i hear the word "muggle" i'll laugh and say he thats another 10 bucks there
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 1:24 PM EST
Professor
Points: 1092
quidditch_queen says:
I'm with MissMaryPotter. He should know that it was going to happen.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 1:51 PM EST
Half-Blood Prince
(Moderator)
Points: 945
Professor Scoots says:
I am glad that this lady got what was coming to her. I hate to see people like this prevail, (those who try and take advantage of situations for their own personal gain) and am happy to see that the judge saw right through this case. Maybe the next person will think twice before bringing one of these silly cases to trail!
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 2:50 PM EST
Heir of Slytherin
Points: 5499
Spazzingduck says:
The Barry Trotter think was obviously a parody, and since it was an admitted parody it was okay. But something called Larry Potter, with characters called Muggles, NOT a parody? Something completely original? Please.
Posted Jan 29, 2004 at 3:39 PM EST
Back to top of page