CNN Transcript – Burden of Proof 7-5-00: ‘Harry Potter’ Book Lawsuit: Legend of Rah and Muggles Author Claims Trademark Violations. Reading this transcript of an interview with author Nancy Stouffer, it appears her pitiful claim of trademark violation is a real stretch and she’s got some real “ambulance-chasing” attorneys. Here’s how she frames it:

Well, I think the biggest

problem here is a level playing field. My muggles are human characters, they

just small human characters who are non-magical people. J.K. Rowling’s are

full-sized human characters as well, and it creates a confusion that is too difficult

to overcome.

Their “muggles” are both non-magical, human characters??!! How blatant is that?? Then she goes on:

And there are other similarities. I have a “Larry Potter” character and she has a

“Harry Potter” character. And I think those are really the two, although there are

many other areas that we have problems with, those two major character

problems really cause the unfair trade for me, and the usages of my mark. It’s

almost impossible to overcome them when the marketplace is not only driven by

just published work, but also the derivative products, such as licensed products,

such as toys or any other ancillary products. So when you have a confusion like

that, there’s no way that I have a capability to market my properties.

Comes off sounding abit mercenary, doesn’t she?

But I’m having an interesting experience of the derivativeness of the Harry Potter books. As each one has come out, my now-6 y.o. son and I have read it aloud (we started Goblet of Fire last night), and in between we’ve been immersed in reading The Lord of the Rings. My son has been commenting upon the convergence between, on the one hand, Dumbledore, Lord Voldemort and the Dementors and, on the other, Gandalf, Sauron and the Ringwraiths. But perhaps it’s just the mobilization of the archetypes when you’re writing about the battle between good and evil in the context of wizards and servants of darkness?