|
Copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secret are all different things that are collectively known as intellectual property.
A patent is a legal monopoly to have exclusive use of a method of solving some problem. You could patent a construction technique, a piece of software, or an invention, but none of that is at issue here. A trade secret is something that is kept secret and penalties apply to people who reveal the secret without permission, again nothing to do with the pub.
A trademark (registered or not) is a brand name. Xerox is a trade mark, Coke is a trademark. "The Hobbit" may well be a trade mark, either because someone has registered it (i.e. officially announced they are using it as a mark) or because it has become associated with a product. The purpose of protecting trade marks is to allow the public to know the source of goods. I can't brew my own cola and sell it as "Coke", I can't sculpt my own miniatures and sell them as "Games Workshop". People are supposed to know that when they see a particular brand name, they know that it is made by the people who own that brand. Will reasonable consumers believe that the pub is officially linked with New Line, the Tolkien estate, or the Saul Z company? If so, they've got a valid trademark suit. It would be a question of fact for a jury.
A copyright protects against direct copying of a work, books, pictures, music, etc can be protected by copyright. Saying "The Hobbit" doesn't violate copyright, reproducing big chunks of text does. The middle ground gets messy, but merely naming the place the Hobbit isn't a violation of copyright. What unambiguously *is* a violation of copyright is printing stills from the movie on your loyalty cards. The use of images of Elijah Woods as Frodo and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel violates New Line' right to control copying of those images. There are some exceptions for parody, reviews, and other "fair use", but straight up taking the images and putting them on your merchandize is going to lose.
The owner complains about the costs of "fighting Hollywood", but really the costs cut both ways. Litigation is expensive, in even a simple case like this tens of thousands of dollars expensive. Does New Line believe it is so injured by the infringement that it wants to spend tens of thousands shutting it down? My guess would be no. Yeah its a violation, but does New Line really believe it is hurt?* Any sane legal department would tell them there isn't anything to gain by suing, any sane PR department would tell them there is a lot to lose. Selling a license for a nominal fee is a good deal for both sides, it's nice to see that everyone looks like they've noticed that.
*The article mentions "Hollywood" which would be New Line, but also the Saul Zaentz company who own I don't know what. Either way, the suit isn't worth the trouble. Even more so if SZ doesn't own the rights to the images from the movies and would have to go after the much weaker claim against the name of the cafe and the names of the drinks.
|
{ PORTAL }
Print view
Top
"Leave Sauron to me."
I agree anyway though [Go Orcs! 
- oops]