This article is written by Priyanka, pursuing a Diploma in Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Laws from LawSikho.
Table of Contents
Introduction
The “Boy who Lived” named Harry Potter who goes to “Hogwarts- the greatest school of Witchcraft and Wizardry” and saves everyone from the “Darkest Wizard of all times”. The series of books that became so popular, they were adapted into movies which created one of the most successful franchises with millions of fans universally. The world of Harry Potter, without any doubt, got many kids into reading and believing in magic. But, on the other hand, complementary to the millions of copies sold, a huge box office collection, large amounts of dollars earned as royalties, and millions of merchandise manufactured, this popularity was accompanied with a bunch of copyright infringements and legal battles. One of them was against Nancy Kathleen Stouffer over the usage of the word- ‘Muggles’ and depiction of a young boy named Larry Potter.
In this article the intellectual property rights related to the Harry Potter series and the critical case copyright and trademark infringement of Larry Potter is discussed in detail.
Harry Potter and Larry Potter – how are they similar?
The book features a boy, of about the age of 10 or 11 years, in a plain blue T-shirt and dark grey bottoms, who stands awkwardly smiling. He has dark black hair, which seems unkempt, despite appearing to be combed. One of his most distinctive features is the dark glasses he wears, with perfectly circular lenses. This illustration of the boy featured is not Harry Potter, the one that immediately comes to mind, but is indeed Larry Potter.
These striking similarities between two characters paved a way for a lawsuit. The question was raised not only over the similarity of the physical attributes of the boys, but also their names, which were brought to the notice by Nancy Stouffer, the author of Larry Potter and his best friend Lilly.
Copyright over Harry Potter books and movies (the journey of ownership of rights from books to movies)
The first book in the Harry Potter series was released in the year 1997, after which six more books (making it a total of seven books in the series) were released in the course of the years till 2007, by author J. K. Rowling. The series explored a magical world, separate and secret from the non-magical universe and included Giants, Goblins, Magical Spells, Wands etc. J. K. Rowling holds Copyright for each of the seven books. This Copyright gave her an exclusive right to protect her story and to commercially exploit the same by granting license to the publishing company named Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., in return of payment in the form of Royalty. (Scholastic Press- Publishers of Harry Potter Books in the USA).
After winning enormous popularity and awards (including the British Books Awards and Children’s Literary Award) Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. obtained exclusive film rights by acquiring a license from J. K. Rowling for all the seven books in the series.
Who owns how much of Harry Potter (Intellectual Property Rights over Harry Potter)
According to the official website of J. K. Rowling (https://www.jkrowling.com/tcs), all the publishing rights and Stage Theatrical Rights for Harry Potter are held by J. K. Rowling. The names and indicia (i.e. distinctive marks, signs and indications) are owned by Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
The copyright and trademark over motion pictures images of Harry Potter is with Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
The word “Wizarding World” is a Trademark of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and J. K. Rowling.
Larry Potter and his best friend Lilly- The initial stage of conflict
The character of Larry Potter is based on the book named “The Legend of Rah and Muggles”, authored by Stouffer, published for the ages 7 to 9 years, in the year 1987, by Ande Publication.
The conflict began in August 1999, when Stouffer and her attorneys initiated talks over the ownership of rights to specific copyrighted and trademarked materials with Scholastic Inc. (the US Publishers of Harry Potter series), about the infringements by J. K. Rowling. The Harry Potter books were hugely popular by that time. Stouffer pointed out the similarity between the physical attributes of Larry Potter and Harry Potter characters and indicated that it infringed her copyright over Larry Potter, whereas, the usage of the word ‘Muggles’ by J. K. Rowling infringed her trademark over the word.
The lawsuit was initiated, when J. K. Rowling, Scholastic Press Inc., and Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. filed a suit against Stouffer seeking “a declaratory judgment that they have not infringed any of Stouffer’s Copyrighted work and trademarked material”.
Larry Potter and his best friend Lilly v. Harry Potter series i.e. Scholastic, Inc. v. Stouffer
Case: Scholastic, Inc. v. Stouffer, 221 F. Supp. 2d 425 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)
Background of the case
The lawsuit was filed on 17th September, 2002, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by J. K. Rowling (author of the Harry Potter Books), Scholastic Press Inc. (publishing company) and Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P. (company possessing film rights for the first two Harry Potter movies and the trademarks related to its Harry Potter films) against the author of “The Legend of Rah and Muggles”, Nancy Stouffer.
Facts of the case
The first Harry Potter book was published in the United Kingdom in the year 1997 by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc., titled Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. Later it was published by Scholastic Press in October 1998, as Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone in the US.
Harry Potter is a story of a young boy living with his uncle and aunt and is constantly neglected by them, frequently abused by his cousin and not treated with respect by the family. Furthermore, he is oblivious of the fact that he is a wizard and his parents were killed by the Darkest wizard of all times named- Voldemort. The book further revolves around the adventures he goes through in Hogwarts- the School of Witchcraft and Wizardry and how he ultimately kills Voldemort and saves the Wizarding World with the help of his friends. In the Harry Potter series, the term muggle is used to indicate the non-magical people (i.e. the non-wizards).
On the other hand, “The Legend of Rah and Muggles” is a story of tiny hairless creatures with elongated heads and narrow limbs with plump bellies. They live in the land called “Aura” and understand the language of animals. The Land of Aura being a ruined land due to war is rejuvenated by the arrival of two human babies and thereby the muggles are given a new life. Here, the word ‘Muggles’ is used to refer to these hairless, plump bellied creatures.
The controversy arose over the ownership of the trademark of the word- Muggle and over the copyright of the physical attributes of both Larry and Harry Potter.
Contentions and their reply
Ande publishing press (publishers of “The legends of Rah and Muggles”) advertised the aforementioned book in a magazine called ‘Playthings’ in the year 1987, wherein there were pictures of muggles accompanied with the word ‘Muggles’. Stouffer in her counterclaim, referred to the point that the word Muggles is trademarked by indicating that the words were written with the trademark symbol “Muggles™ from RAH™”, way before the Harry Potter books were published. However, the Plaintiffs and their attorney were successful in tracking down the Playthings Magazine and proving that this evidence is fraudulent, as even though the exhibit provided by Stouffer to the Court, contained the word Muggle, the “Muggles™ from RAH™” logo was absent from the original copy of the advertisement, implying that the word Muggle was not trademarked by Stouffer.
Additionally, Stouffer also authored a book titled Larry Potter and his best friend Lilly. Stouffer produced a photocopied Printer’s proof published by Ande publishing press., which was the early draft of the book. The book however contained no title page and only a passage that referred to Larry Potter (the rest of the printer’s proof referred to the main character as ‘Larry’). The plaintiff proved that this evidence was also deceitful as the passage referring to Larry Potter was printed in a font that did not exist until 1993 (Stouffer claimed that the copy she presented to the Court came from originals published in 1988).
Ande’s was rendered bankrupt and shut down, after which Stouffer formed a new publishing venture named Book Cook Inc. (“BCI”) for a brief period of time. The versions of Larry Potter and his best friend Lilly contained illustrations of a young boy with brown or orange hair (it differs from illustration to illustration), with round eyeglasses. Depending on the particular illustration, he was either smiling or frowning. Claiming that Larry Potter existed years before Harry Potter books came along. But Stouffer failed to produce any original copy of the said book. In addition to that, the employees of BCI testified that BCI never published a book by that title, hence proving that the contentions made by Stouffer were false.
Later, Stouffer claimed that a version of ‘The Legends of Rah and the Muggles’ was published by ALCD company, which is owned by her husband, David Stouffer, in the year 1997 (the same year in which the first Harry Potter book was published). The length of this book slightly differed from the one published by Ande. Stouffer submitted the photocopy of the same as evidence to the Court. But the plaintiffs proved that the original documents from which these photocopies were taken could not have been created before 1997, due to the non-existence of technological advancements.
Judgment of the case
The Court, in this case, passed a judgment that the plaintiff’s distribution, publication, and exploitation of Harry Potter books does not violate the Intellectual Property Rights of Stouffer. Stouffer was further restricted from making false and misleading claims that she owns a trademark over the work ‘Muggles’ and that J. K. Rowling has infringed her copyright, to the third parties.
The Court compared the Harry Potter Books with Stouffer’s work and concluded that there is no reasonable likelihood of confusion between the works of two parties. Similarly, the use of ‘Harry Potter’ as a character in the Harry Potter series does not cause any confusion with Stouffer’s character Larry Potter.
The other similarities between Harry Potter and the works of Stouffer were all disregarded by the Court on the ground that it is in no way possible that these similarities may cause confusion in the minds of readers as these words are used in completely different senses. This judgment is in regard to the character of ‘Lily Potter’, ‘Neville’ and the appearance of the word ‘Nimbus’ in both the books.
The contention raised by Stouffer that in the Harry Potter series the plaintiffs use a job title for a character as “Keeper of Keys and Grounds”, whereas she herself uses the job title ‘the Keeper’ of various things was also disregarded. The Court is of the opinion that the word “Keeper” is a common word. The mere fact that both the authors came up with a title using this word is just a coincidence and there is no infringement involved.
Further, the Court sanctioned the plaintiffs to file a lawsuit against Stouffer for “perpetration of fraud upon the Court”, as all her claims and evidence were deceitful.
The Court fined Stouffer with US $50,000. In addition to the fine, the Court ordered Stouffer to compensate the plaintiff by paying the legal fees and costs rendered by the plaintiff.
Conclusion
To sum it up, the similarities between the Harry Potter series and Stouffer’s books are minimal and thus negligible. They do not have a likelihood of causing confusion. And as all the claims made by Stouffer were based on the contention that the plaintiff’s work has the potential to cause confusion, the plaintiff’s declaratory judgment was granted.
Thus, it can be concluded that the lawsuit and the claims by Nancy Stouffer were fraudulent. There was no merit to her allegation against J. K. Rowling, Scholastic Press Inc. and Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.. The word Muggles is indeed not a trademark owned by her. Stouffer’s affirmation that her character Larry Potter was established in the market years before the Harry Potter series came along, was also not true.
References
- https://www.copyrightuser.org/educate/a-level-media-studies/prompt-1/
- http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l195-Copyright-Law-in-India.html#
- www.copyright.gov.in
- https://www.bustle.com/p/who-owns-harry-potter-what-jk-rowlings-series-can-teach-us-about-copyright-law-9543144
- https://www.studocu.com/hk/document/city-university-of-hong-kong/law/summaries/warner-bros-v-rdr-books-harry-potter-lexicon/11269874/view
- https://azrights.com/media/news-and-media/blog/2016/12/what-jk-rowling-needed-to-know-about-intellectual-property-law/
- https://www.jkrowling.com/tcs/
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/221/425/2486359/
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15295030903177516k
Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skill.
LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:
