![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ladyvyolaIf you've got any time to kill, this is fascinating reading.
There's a bit of wonky formatting but don't let it throw you -- it's worth the trouble.
This is a transcript of the summary judgment by the US District Court in 2002 against Nancy Stouffer, who claimed that she held the trademark for the word "Muggle" and that J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers had infringed on several pieces of her intellectual property.
The court found that not only was there no true similarity between her work and JKR's, not only was there no true similarity between her illustrations and Mary GranPre's, not only was there no proof that she held the trademark "Muggle", but that EVERY SINGLE PIECE of documentary evidence Souffer submitted was altered, misleading, and fraudulent.
EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE.
I have a new definition of chutzpah, people.
For all that it's a dry piece of legal writing, you can almost hear the court's exasperation.
There's a bit of wonky formatting but don't let it throw you -- it's worth the trouble.
This is a transcript of the summary judgment by the US District Court in 2002 against Nancy Stouffer, who claimed that she held the trademark for the word "Muggle" and that J.K. Rowling and Warner Brothers had infringed on several pieces of her intellectual property.
The court found that not only was there no true similarity between her work and JKR's, not only was there no true similarity between her illustrations and Mary GranPre's, not only was there no proof that she held the trademark "Muggle", but that EVERY SINGLE PIECE of documentary evidence Souffer submitted was altered, misleading, and fraudulent.
EVERY. SINGLE. PIECE.
I have a new definition of chutzpah, people.
For all that it's a dry piece of legal writing, you can almost hear the court's exasperation.
