How sad can you get?...

[Ursa major]

Looking again at the words:

The letter goes on to say that use of the name Hobbit "is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception among prospective purchasers, who are likely to believe that your business is licensed, authorised, sponsored or endorsed by SZC".

Are patrons of the sandwich bar being conned? Do they think a proportion of the money they hand over is going to help the needy of The Shire? Or would they be disgusted that none of their money will end up in one of the world's poorest areas, Hollywood?

Irrespective of the legal position, the suggestion that anyone but the owners (or shareholders) of SZC would be in the least bit interested in SZC's non-existent financial loss (unless the sandwich bar is somehow diverting some of SZC's bread ) is an example of steroid-enhanced preening self-regard.

I would suggest that the public's reaction to SZC's non-existent loss would be best summed up by the parting words of another fictional character, Rhett Butler.

[Ökuþórr]

Originally Posted by devilsgrin

as much as this does seem (and is) a david vs goliath case, i actually have to come down on the side of the licence holders. Hobbit is not a general word, its a VERY clearly Tolkeinesque word and even the name of the cafe, the Hungry Hobbit is a very clear LOTR/Hobbit reference. Certainly with 2 forthcoming movies, i can completely see their justification for now pursuing legal action, where perhaps in the past it hadn't been brought to their attention.

I dont think something being Tolkeinesque is any kind of justification for a lawsuit. If it was, how many fantasy authors would have to pay up? As for the name, I would say it has more to do with the nice alliteration. You go to a cafe when you're hungry, hungry sounds good (better than other words related to eating) when next to Hobbit.

And it seems Tolkein didn't even invent the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit_%28word%29#Evidence_of_earlier_use
So they cant really sue over the use of something they don't even own. (If anyone knows more on the accuracy of the Wiki article, please correct me.)

Oh, and I found this amusing while searching. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit_%28unit%29

Who the hell are SZC?

[pyan]

I wonder if SZC are going to go after everyone who called their house "Rivendell", on the same grounds?

[natalienoo]

Originally Posted by Ökuþórr

I dont think something being Tolkeinesque is any kind of justification for a lawsuit. If it was, how many fantasy authors would have to pay up? As for the name, I would say it has more to do with the nice alliteration. You go to a cafe when you're hungry, hungry sounds good (better than other words related to eating) when next to Hobbit.

And it seems Tolkein didn't even invent the word. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit_%28word%29#Evidence_of_earlier_use
So they cant really sue over the use of something they don't even own. (If anyone knows more on the accuracy of the Wiki article, please correct me.)

Oh, and I found this amusing while searching. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobbit_%28unit%29

Who the hell are SZC?

If it's on Wiki, it must be true! I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia, despite some of the questionable entries and facts they have. But I suppose that's what happens when the so-called general public are free to make alterations. I've seen a couple of separate claims about Michael Denham writing that list in 1895, so that seems like a relatively solid piece of information.

I'll have a hobbit of oats, please

[natalienoo]

Originally Posted by pyan

I wonder if SZC are going to go after everyone who called their house "Rivendell", on the same grounds?

Let's hope they aren't owned by little old ladies feeding the homeless homemade pie. There will be hell to pay!

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

This also means that JD's middle ground is no such thing. It merely allows rapacious companies to get paid for extending the scope of their trade names beyond what they should really be.

But we aren't talking about what that scope should be (in which I agree with you), but rather what the legal realities are. Companies with such copyright -- or even who believe they have such copyright -- will most often resort to legal action if they feel it has been infringed, whether their impression is correct or not. (Both August and April Derleth, from what I understand, used this tactic frequently when someone utilized a character, name, or locale from Lovecraft, feeling any "unauthorized" use of Lovecraft's mythos endangered his reputation... not to mention Arkham House's potential sales of related books. Derleth even intimidated someone into not publishing their master's thesis on Lovecraft, as he felt it would damage HPL's reputation. As it turned out, they didn't have the rights they thought they had, and upon Derleth's death, the floodgates opened, and the result we see today.)

Given the possibility that they have those rights, they are likely to take whatever action the law allows; my suggestion, on the other hand, would make for a compromise which would protect legal rights, not hurt the smaller businesses (a nominal fee can be as little as a dollar, after all), and in the end bring in more business all 'round, while dealing with the realities of how the law works.

All this is, of course, moot if they really can't build a case... but small businesses can't often afford to take a risk on that score, either....

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by j. d. worthington

...but small businesses can't often afford to take a risk on that score, either....

...which is a shame, because these things ought to be tested in court, if only so that everyone would know where they stood when a company owns the rights to a brand in one commercial domain and whether or not it does extend into other commercial domains. So where, for instance, are this company's previous successful law suits? Have they ever had one settled in court? Wouldn't they quote their successes in front of a judge (with or without jury) if they had any?


Frankly, threatening the smallest businesses you can find suggests the action of a bully, not a company that can rely on its cast-iron case in law.

[j. d. worthington]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Frankly, threatening the smallest businesses you can find suggests the action of a bully, not a company that can rely on its cast-iron case in law.

I tend to agree with you on this, and it reminds me a lot of tales of Disney suing day-care centers to remove any of their characters from the murals. (Whether these stories are true or not, I could not guarantee, though I do know of a few where they went after other companies when they felt they were infringing on their copyright by having what they -- though no one else could have made that mistake -- perceived as copies of their characters; and those are definitely true.)

However, as long as the law allows such situations to arise, my point is that these companies would get a lot more favorable reaction were they to take a more reasonable course. But, as with so many things, greed (which does not have to equate to money-lust here; recall the bone in the story?) tends to override common sense or decency or even good (long-range) business practice....

[Isildur's Heir]

Originally Posted by pyan

I wonder if SZC are going to go after everyone who called their house "Rivendell", on the same grounds?

I hope that doesn't mean they'll close Bilbo's cafe in the Lake district.

[Clansman]

What about pubs named "The Green Dragon" the world over?