Over the weekend the New

Apr 02, 2001

Posted by bkdelongTLC

Over the weekend the New York Times printed an article about the Nancy Stouffer vs. J.K. Rowling row regarding Rowling’s supposed “rip off” of Stouffer’s books. While the article doesn’t seem to cover Rowling’s side of the story (ie no remarks from Rowling, her lawyers, Scholastic etc), the article does present some interesting point’s I’ve been making since this whole issue started:

Mrs. Stouffer’s lawyers do not contend that Ms. Rowling plagiarized the term “muggles.” The use of the term antedates both authors – it was slang for marijuana and appeared in a Louis Armstrong song, among other places. And Mrs. Stouffer’s “muggles” were short, hairless, quasihuman mutants, but Ms. Rowling’s are just regular people who lack magical powers.

Instead, Mrs. Stouffer’s lawyers argue the phenomenal popularity of Ms. Rowling’s books will interfere with her ability to sell her own “muggles” merchandise. In court papers, Ms. Stouffer’s lawyers say she has tried for years to sell magnets, pajamas and other paraphernalia based on her own “muggles” at trade shows and elsewhere. But now the term “muggle” has become a hallmark of Ms. Rowling’s books. Mrs. Stouffer’s lawyers claim Ms. Rowling has effectively ruined Mrs. Stouffer’s trademark.

This is odd. can Stouffer even sue on this basis? So Rowling’s use of Muggles happened to be more popular than Stouffer…so she has been unable to sell any products under that name. Has anyone bothered to note that Stouffer applied for her trademark of Muggle and Muggles long after she began her lawsuit against Rowling. She doesn’t even have trademark registration numbers assigned to them yet!

She registered her trademark for the first time last year.

OK, I lied. One small line. But I don’t think it makes a strong enough point.

Her new publisher is making as much as it can out of the resemblance between Mrs. Stouffer’s books and Ms. Rowling’s. The cover of Mrs. Stouffer’s book “The Legend of Rah and the Muggles” previously depicted her miniature mutants, with the word “muggles” in small print. This time, the word “Muggles” appears in large type against the backdrop of a castle reminiscent of the one on Mrs. Rowling’s books. Her character Larry Potter previously played a supporting role in a series of magazine-size booklets starring his cousin, Lilly. But now he is front and center on the cover of Mrs. Stouffer’s new hardcover book, “Larry Potter and His Best Friend Lilly.”

And the author’s name has been changed, too, from “Nancy Stouffer” to “N. K. Stouffer.”

Ahhh. So we’re not the only people who noticed it. Her books have been out of print for almost a decade and she decides she needs to make some money and get herself back out on the market. Why not a lawsuit? Unbelievable – and disgusting what some people will do. If Stouffer’s books came even remotely close to being well-written then she wouldn’t find the need to file a lawsuit just to bring attention to herself.





11 Responses to Over the weekend the New

Avatar Image says: Omg, i cant believe it either. stouffer's books are crap, and the bear no resembelence to J.k. Rowling. The woman must be sick. Just because no one wants 2 read her books doesnt mean she has 2 sue the best author in england and the usa...Avatar Image says: Eh, erm, actually. Wasn't there more simalaraties than just the muggles? I'm aware of a few, Nimbus, Lily Potter, Keeper of the Gardens(Simliar to Keeper of the Keys). Eh, I'm not a Harry Potter fan, nor a Larry Potter fan. LOL I guess it's like, no JK Rowling fan would ever want to believe it's true. (Not saying it is! LOL) Hrm, but then someone could say it's simliar to a lot of other things. Like DiscWorld, there's a book called Wyrd Sisters and a thing called Hogswatch. In Harry Potter there's that music group thing called Weird Sisters and yeah Hogwarts. LOL. Ah, one thing I noticed which was actually cool that there's a star called Sirius! (And yeah I know there's one called Draco too.) I dunno really. The whole Larry Potter thing is very convincing when you look at all the evidence. Ah, who knows. Either JK Rowling created it all by herself, or she's a very good fraud. I don't know what to believe, yet. Avatar Image says: Damn, clicked post before I'd finished. LOL Anywho, it's like I think JK Rowling is talented in her own way. And yeah even though there are similarities to the whole Larry Potter stuff it still is a completely different story line and such in the end. So yeah, I think I'ma have to side with JK Rowling. LOL. Wow, I just made up my mind about it. Hurray! Avatar Image says: I think the only reason she sued JKR is because she's better and made A WHOLE lotta more money than she could have made. bEsides, I'm pretty sure that there's a lot of other stories in this worl with the same terms or names but different meanings and you don't hear the authors complaining or suing the others.Avatar Image says: Very nice blog.Avatar ImageWON_TWO says: This was such CRAP!Avatar ImageBrosia23 says: I read the intro of this steaming pile, it is the worst book I have ever read, and I read Twilight.Avatar ImageBrosia23 says: I read the intro of this steaming pile, it is the worst book I have ever read, and I read Twilight.Avatar ImageBrosia23 says: I read the intro of this steaming pile, it is the worst book I have ever read, and I read Twilight.Avatar ImageBrosia23 says: I read the intro of this steaming pile, it is the worst book I have ever read, and I read Twilight.Avatar ImageBrosia23 says: I read the intro of this steaming pile, it is the worst book I have ever read, and I read Twilight.

Write a Reply or Comment

Finding Hogwarts

The Leaky Cauldron is not associated with J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or any of the individuals or companies associated with producing and publishing Harry Potter books and films.