J. K. Rowling

Joanne Rowling (Joanne Kathleen Rowling is not her legal name; see below for the explanation) OBE (born 31 July 1965), commonly known as J. K. Rowling (pronunciation: role-ing, as in rolling stone) is a British fiction writer. Rowling is most famous as author of the Harry Potter fantasy series, which has gained international attention, won multiple awards and sold a reported 300 million copies worldwide as of 2005. In February 2004, Forbes magazine estimated her fortune as £576 million (just over US$1 billion), making her the first person to become a US dollar billionaire by writing books. Rowling is also believed to be the wealthiest woman in the United Kingdom, well ahead of even Queen Elizabeth II, but this is unproven as the Queen's personal fortune is hidden in 'The Bank of England Nominees' making her fortune known to only her closest officials.http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/26/cx_jw_0226rowlingbill04.html http://www.forbes.com/lists/results.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2004&passListType=Person&searchParameter1=unset&searchParameter2=unset&resultsHowMany=25&resultsSortProperties=%2Bstringfield11%2C-numberfield3&resultsSortCategoryName=Country&fromColumnClick=&bktDisplayField=&bktDisplayFieldLength=&category1=category&category2=category&passKeyword=&resultsStart=301

Lawsuits

Rowling has been involved in several lawsuits over the Harry Potter series, and other litigation has been suggested or rumoured.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Nancy Stouffer

In the late 1990s Nancy Stouffer, an author of children's books published in the 1980s, began to charge publicly that Rowling's books were based on her books, including The Legend of Rah and the Muggles and Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly.

Related Topics:
1990s - Nancy Stouffer - 1980s

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In 2001 Rowling, Scholastic Press (the American publisher of her books) and Warner Bros. (the producer of the film adaptations) sued Stouffer, asking the court to judge that there was no infringement of Stouffer's trademarks or copyright. Stouffer, who had not previously sued, then filed counterclaims alleging such infringement.

Related Topics:
2001 - Scholastic Press - Warner Bros. - Trademark - Copyright - Counterclaim

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Rowling and her co-litigants argued that much of the evidence that Stouffer presented was fraudulent, and asked for sanctions and attorneys' fees as punishment. In September 2002 the court found in Rowling's favour, stating that Stouffer had lied to the court and falsified and forged documents to support her case. Stouffer was fined US$50,000 and ordered to pay part (but not all) of the plaintiffs' costs.

Related Topics:
Evidence - Fraudulent - 2002 - Forged

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In January 2004 it was reported that Stouffer's appeal against the judgement had been rejected. 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 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 also ordered to pay the costs of the appeal. A report of the judgement can be found at Entertainment Law Digest. The 2002 judgement can be found here:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ROWLING v. STOUFFER

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

New York Daily News

On 19 June 2003 Rowling and her publisher Scholastic announced that they would sue the New York Daily News for $100 million because the newspaper had printed information on her work Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix before the book's official release date. The novel was due for release on Saturday 21 June, but the newspaper published a plot summary and short quotes on the previous Wednesday. An accompanying image even revealed two pages from the book with legible text. However, the story was complicated further when it was revealed that the paper had purchased the book from a health store whose owner received the novels wholesale and decided to place them in the window. The man claimed he was unaware he was supposed to wait until that Saturday.

Related Topics:
2003 - New York Daily News - Newspaper - Wholesale

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The People's Republic of China

In 2003, unauthorised Chinese-language "sequels" to the Harry Potter series, such as Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon, appeared for sale in the People's Republic of China. These poorly-written books (written by Chinese ghost writers) contain characters from the works of other authors, including Gandalf from J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and the title character from L. Frank Baum's The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Rowling's lawyers successfully took legal action against the publishers, who were forced to pay damages.

Related Topics:
Chinese - Harry Potter - Harry Potter and Leopard-Walk-Up-to-Dragon - People's Republic of China - Ghost writer - Gandalf - J. R. R. Tolkien - Lord of the Rings - L. Frank Baum - The Wonderful Wizard of Oz

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~