How sad can you get?...

[pyan]

A Birmingham cafe is being threatened with legal action by SZC, the copyright holders to various Tolkien brands:

Hungry Hobbit cafe told to change name

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ngham-15825960


The letter states "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"".

It added that use of the name "takes unfair advantage of, and is detrimental to the reputation of SZC's Hobbit mark".

Yeah, right. I'm not going to see the new "Hobbit" film because I had a cold cup of tea in that cafe.....

[HareBrain]

Originally Posted by pyan

The letter states "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"".

How are they "likely" to believe it's been licensed by an organisation they've never heard of? How is it even possible?

The only people to succumb to the deception SCZ believe is being perpetrated would have to be both incredibly knowledgable and exceptionally stupid. Such people exist, but there can't be many of them to be found searching for a bacon butty in Birmingham.

[natalienoo]

Greedy, greedy corporations.
I do hope they drop this lawsuit. If Tolkien could see them now, how very sad he would be.

"They think we're this big empire, but we're just a cafe." First-time business owners learning the ropes and they get a letter like that through the post.

[HareBrain]

Originally Posted by natalienoo

Greedy, greedy corporations.

I don't think the corporation is being greedy in this case. It doesn't stand to make any financial gain. It's just being knee-jerkingly protectionist.

I do hope they drop this lawsuit.

I hope the cafe tells them to get lost, because the corporation doesn't have a case. Their claim is based on assertions (that people are "likely" to think the cafe has been granted the name by SZC) that are manifest nonsense. They're just trying to scare the cafe into backing down without a fight.

[natalienoo]

True, True. They don't have a very solid case but they can still kick up a stink about it and make the cafe owners' lives miserable.

Greed isn't necessarily limited to financial gain in my view, so I still see this as a form of greed. It's an easily avoidable and harmless situation, yet the SZC insist on making a complaint.

[Boneman]

Here's what it says on SCZ's website:

Middle-earth Enterprises owns exclusive worldwide rights to motion picture, merchandising, stage and other rights in certain literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien including The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. We have produced and licensed films, stage productions and merchandise based on these Tolkien works for more than thirty years.

It don't say nothing about cafes, does it? They are a film agency, not a restaurant guide. But hopefully, the attendant publicity will give the Hungry Hobbit loads of business!! Maybe the next LOTR conference could be held there... Stupid American Film Industry - get a life, will you?

[thaddeus6th]

Bloody stupid corporate. I hope the cafe people get a lot of extra business from the publicity.

[Overread]

The problem, however, is that if the company does not protect the IP copyright that they have purchased/licensed then it opens the floodgates to other possible infringements and I think that if they allow unchallenged use of the IP it might even void the copyright in some form -- at the very least it might well lead to future possible licence purchases paying far below the original costs to use the licence, based on the fact that other users are using it for free without permission.

Sadly this is where the cold hard corporate world and legal world hits real life in a way that generally results in bad feelings. However we have to remember that whilst greed is a motive in these affairs, there is also the underlying protection that copyright affords to people which also has to be upheld if it is to remain viable.

[j. d. worthington]

Um, you know, there is a middle ground they could take here*. They could (as they have) protest the use of the name without authorization, and open the door to these people to get authorization for a reasonable (read: small or decent) fee. They protect their property; the cafe owners get the publicity of the name; and the corporation gets the publicity of (gasp!) having used a little common sense in resolving an issue without going to court....

*at least, I'm assuming this is an option. It certainly used to, and still should, be so....

[HareBrain]

Originally Posted by Overread

The problem, however, is that if the company does not protect the IP copyright that they have purchased/licensed then it opens the floodgates to other possible infringements and I think that if they allow unchallenged use of the IP it might even void the copyright in some form -- at the very least it might well lead to future possible licence purchases paying far below the original costs to use the licence, based on the fact that other users are using it for free without permission.

Sadly this is where the cold hard corporate world and legal world hits real life in a way that generally results in bad feelings. However we have to remember that whilst greed is a motive in these affairs, there is also the underlying protection that copyright affords to people which also has to be upheld if it is to remain viable.

But this cafe has been going for six years. Has there, in that time, been a flood of opportunistic use of the word "Hobbit" brought about by SZC's previous failure to challenge them?

In any case, I thought the point of IP law was to prevent or redress damage caused to the IP's owner. Damage usually means loss of income and/or reputation, etc. Neither seems to have occurred here, which is why I believe they have no case (if my understanding of IP law is accurate, which is a bit of an "if"), and why they should stick to going after people who have caused such damage.

[Ursa major]

I thought trade names were in some sense tied to an industry, such that if there were to be a company called Express Coaches, that would not prevent a dairy company calling itself Express Dairies. Does SZC (or is it SCZ: the company is so well known that no-one can tell, short of looking it up, what the correct name is) run cafés? Are their eateries called, specifically, Hungry Hobbits? And even if the café was called The Hobbit, how could that possibly affect SCZ's (or SZC's) true business and trade names?


It strikes me that where companies like SZC (or SCZ) generally win is that each target they pick on is chosen because it cannot afford to fight its corner in court, so big companies can extend the scope of their trade names purely by default (with no need for a valid case in law, provided they have deep enough pockets). 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.)

[PTeppic]

As Overread said above, one of the tennets in UK IP legislation is that it must be "enforced" by the holding organisation. If SZC don't chase this one, they genuinely weaken their legal case for the next time (when there might be lots of reputation and money at stake).

I would have thought that, given the connections to JRRT, SZC could consider licencing the cafe and end the fuss.

[The Ace]

SZC are Americans, so sod them !

How can a US company have the moral right to dictate to a British company who liked the sound of a name used in a British book ?

They bought the legal right, I suppose, but some things aren't for sale.

[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.

[Overread]

Normally speaking the word Hobbit won't become "free" until 70 years after Tolkiens death, however as the books and earning are now held in a trust chances are that even in 33 odd years time, because the copyright is now trust held it will still continue on past that date.

Places like the Hungry Hobbit will have to stump up the money and pay or at the very least seek the proper channels to get licensing permission.

I agree that it is somewhat a shame that the global world makes these small, more local things seem to affect the little people more than they should; but in the end the copyright laws are there to protect both the big companies and the average person on the street.