Warner Bros. Bullies Airbnb Hobbit-Themed Offering Into Changing Its Name Over 'Hobbit' Trademark

from the napoleon-complex dept

We've covered intellectual property issues that revolve around Tolkien's Lord of the Rings properties before. By now, everyone should know that any use of or homage to those properties, or even coincidental usage, will typically result in angry letters from lawyers. What's even more fun about all of that is you get to play the game called, "Whose lawyers are going to write the angry letter this time?" Between the Tolkien estate and its IP management partners and Warner Bros., the studio behind the LotR films, they have managed to block an unrelated wine business from using the word "hobbit," bullied a pub named "The Hobbit" to get it to change its name before recanting said bullying, and got a Kickstarter project shut down for trying to create a real-world "Hobbit house."

This is where it's worth reminding everyone that Tolkien did not come up with the word "hobbit". That word already existed, though it meant something different than how Tolkien used it to name his race of diminutive folk. The Kickstarter example above is apropos to this post specifically, as it seems that Warner Bros. is at it again, having forced an Airbnb listing clearly designed to be another homage to Tolkien's hobbit homes in the Shire to change its name.

The Okanagan homage to middle earth that doubles as a popular Airbnb spot officially has a new name. It’s now the Second Breakfast Hideaway.

“And the h***** mountain hole is now a Second Breakfast Hideaway (I'm still full from the first one),” the AirBNB owners wrote in a May 22 post.

The popular Airbnb named for its likeness to the housing in J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of Rings books went on the hunt for a new name following a threat from Warner Bros. which owns the trademark to the word hobbit. Christine Le Combe and her husband purchased the Halfling Hideaway, located roughly 30 minutes east of Osoyoos, last year and renamed it the Hobbit Mountain Hideaway. It's been a popular vacation destination since it opened in 2019. Earlier this week, Le Combe was contacted by entertainment media company Warner Bros. and was told the word “hobbit” is trademarked and they asked her to take down the listing.

Unfortunately, the source post doesn't bother to interrogate whether the takedown request from Warner Bros. is remotely valid. I would very much argue that it is not, considering that Warner Bros. use of the term "hobbit" is solely focused on movies and movie merchandise, both of which are a far cry from the hospitality and rental business. But Warner Bros. also has deep pockets and the folks behind this Airbnb listing likely do not, which is why trademark bullying works. The threat of Warner Bros. taking this far enough for it to see the inside of the courtroom is almost certainly an extinction level scenario for the former Hobbit Mountain Hideaway.

So, instead, a movie studio gets a rental property to change its name. And that sucks, no matter how positive the victims of this bullying want to be.

“Having to get out of my comfort zone and engage with the community has been a good experience,” Le Combe said.

“I really didn’t think that somebody would copyright the word hobbit and then try to hunt a person down if they use the word hobbit because it’s not like I meant any harm. The hobbit house is an homage to the favourite book series of a lot of people.”

It's almost as though at Warner Bros. there is some sort of all-seeing eye that scours the physical and digital worlds for any use of the term "hobbit", all in an effort to track and strike down those that would use it. If only there were some usable analogy I could reference for that without getting sued...

Filed Under: hobbit, hobbit hobbit hobbit, lord of the rings, tolkien, trademark, trademark bullying
Companies: airbnb, warner bros.

Middle Earth Enterprises Attempts To Block Wine Importer From Using The Word 'Hobbit'

from the stop-wining dept

We've seen all kinds of strange trademark actions revolving around the works of Tolkien, including threats against holiday campsites and pubs. The dual threat of dumb in these disputes always ends up being both the protectionist aims against businesses that don't operate anywhere near the literary or theatrical realms in which Tolkien's works normally operate and the sketchy history of the term "hobbit" itself, with it being rather clear that Tolkien both didn't invent the word itself and actually based his hobbit characters on previous fictional works. This of course hasn't precluded anyone with any kind of ownership stake in rights associated with Tolkien from sending out threats to anyone and everyone that in any way uses the term.

Which brings us to Middle-Earth Enterprises, owner of some of the rights to Tolkien's works and owned by film producer Paul Zaentz, and its apparent opposition to a trademark application by a wine importer, because why the hell not?

A tall wife and her short husband are locked in a legal battle over whether they are allowed to have the word 'Hobbit' in the title of their wine business. Stuart and Elise Whittaker set up Giraffe and Hobbit, which imports wine from small vineyards in Provence, France, in the summer of 2014 to poke fun at the difference in their heights. But American company Middle-earth Enterprises, which owns the copyright to the word 'Hobbit', is trying to block the couple's attempt to register the company as a trademark.

Mr Whittaker said: "We applied for the trademark with the Intellectual Property Office, we decided on the name already, it had nothing to do with the Hobbit film or Lord of the Rings. It is a reference to the fact my wife is quite tall and I'm not so tall."

This is nearly the definition of when a term either becomes generic in nature or too broad to deserve wide trademark protection. In naming their company, the Whittakers weren't thinking about Tolkien. Hobbit meant "short person" to them, not "race of people from the The Lord of the Rings universe." When coupled with the fact that theirs is a wine business, having nothing to do with the film or literature industries, the opposition from Middle-Earth Enteprises leads us to a common mantra: this is not what trademark is for.

Par for the course, the opposition was carried out in the most irritating manner possible.

A couple of months after attempting to register their trademark, Giraffe and Hobbit, the couple were sent a Notice of Threatened Opposition from American firm The Saul Zaentz Company.

The 36-year-old added: "We got the Notice of Threatened Opposition the day before it was going to go through and a registered trademark."

The diminutive Whittaker goes on to note, correctly, that Tolkien admitted that he didn't come up with the term. This matters less in trademark terms than copyright, but is still an indication that the term is not unique or source-identifying. Meanwhile, it stretches credulity to think that Middle-Earth Enterprises could somehow show that there would be confusion at stake here. But, hey, just another day in the world of trademark bullying by someone associated with Tolkien.

Filed Under: hobbit, tolkien, trademark, wine
Companies: giraffe and hobbit, middle earth enterprises

Scientist Refused Permission To Call Hominids 'Hobbits', Even Though Word First Used In Print In 1895 -- And Not By Tolkien

from the always-check-your-sources dept

Techdirt has written before about the aggressive enforcement habits of the Tolkien estate, once in connection with the name "Tolkien", and once regarding the word "Hobbit". Looks like they're at it again, down in New Zealand:

Victoria University's Brent Alloway has organised a free public lecture on Homo floresiensis, a species closely related to humans which lived on Flores Island, but has been told he is not allowed to call the free public lecture 'The Other Hobbit'.

The volcanologist wrote to the estate of Hobbit author JRR Tolkein about the event on December 1 as a courtesy, but was told by Wellington lawyers AJ Park representing the estate that he was not allowed to use the word.

That's pretty ridiculous from many viewpoints. First, this is a free public lecture from a scientist -- not a commercial use of any kind. Secondly, the hominids in question have been called "hobbits" by the scientific community almost since their discovery in 2004, so this is a very well-established usage. Finally -- and most interestingly -- over on Twitter, Chris Puttick pointed out that Tolkien wasn't even the first to use the term "hobbit" in this sense:

The word also turns up in a very long list of folkloric supernatural creatures in the writings of Michael Aislabie Denham (d.1859), printed in volume 2 of "The Denham Tracts" [ed. James Hardy, London: Folklore Society, 1895], a compilation of Denham's scattered publications. Denham was an early folklorist who concentrated on Northumberland, Durham, Westmoreland, Cumberland, the Isle of Man, and Scotland.

Since the book appeared in 1895, and Denham died in 1859, that would seem to place all of its text – and hence the creature known as a "hobbit" - in the public domain. I wonder what the Tolkien Estate will say to that?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: copyright, free speech, hobbits, science, tolkien

Tolkien Estate 'Settles' Dispute Over Historical Fiction Book With JRR Tolkien As A Character

from the too-bad dept

In one of the many, many overreaches by the Tokien Estate, it threatened author Stephen Hillard, who has written a bit of historical fiction combined with literary criticism, called Mirkwood, which uses a fictionalized JRR Tolkien as a character. The Tolkien Estate sent a cease-and-desiste, and Hillard smartly sued for declaratory judgment. Apparently the two sides have worked out their differences and have settled the lawsuit, which will allow the book to be published. However, Hillard does have to make a few small changes:

According to the settlement, the book will now be released with a modified reference to Tolkien on the cover and will also include the disclaimer, "This is a work of fiction which is neither endorsed nor connected with The JRR Tolkien Estate or its publisher."

I certainly understand why a settlement would be reached, but really it's too bad that any changes were made. Hillard had a strong case, and the estate had little or no case. Yet, now that it was able to pressure the author into making some changes (even if they were small), it emboldens the estate to continue its silly and counterproductive campaign.

Filed Under: historical fiction, tolkien

Tolkien Estate Strikes Again: Forces Summer Camp To Change Name

from the because-of-all-that-confusion dept

Christopher Tolkien and the estate of JRR Tolkien has a long history of overly aggressive attempts to stop anyone from using any sort of Tolkien-related content. The latest target: evil summer camps. Apparently the Tolkien estate has forced a Calgary summer camp to change its name, because it was called Rivendell, after the elven outpost in The Lord of the Rings. The camp received a cease-and-desist:

"While our clients do not believe that you intended to infringe their intellectual property rights, you will understand that they have an obligation to protect these valuable rights and carefully to preserve the integrity of the Tolkien works."

Unfortunately, the article does not show the full letter, nor does it explain if the letter highlighted exactly which intellectual property rights the estate is complaining about. Does the estate have a trademark on "rivendell" in Canada? Does the estate use the term in commerce anywhere in order to get a trademark? Does that trademark cover summer camps? All of that seems doubtful.

Either way, the camp just backed down and changed its name, noting that the whole LotR thing was getting pretty tired, anyway. Nicely done, Christopher, you've just made sure that a whole bunch of kids will no longer have a positive summer camping experience associated with the name Rivendell...

Filed Under: rivendell, tolkien

Tolkien Estate Says Just Mentioning Tolkien Infringes; Tolkien Censorwear Appears In Response

from the that's-not-how-this-works dept

We've been mentioning a bit about how the estate of JRR Tolkien has been overaggressive in trying to enforce (sometimes non-existent) intellectual property rights related to Tolkien. The estate has been like that for a while, but in the last few weeks it's seemed like the number of such stories have been ramping up. The latest one is particularly ridiculous. Boing Boing points us to the news that the Tolkien Estate has threatened a guy for having a button that merely mentions Tolkien: If you can't see the image, the button reads: "While you were reading Tolkien, I was watching Evangelion." That's not infringing in any way, shape or form. Yet, the Tolkien Estate sent Zazzle (where the button was being sold) a cease and desist. Ridiculously, Zazzle simply complied. That's disappointing as well. In cases of obvious overreach, Zazzle should stand up for the rights of its users.

Of course, where Zazzle fails to stand up for its users, its users seem to be more than willing to stand up for themselves. A bunch of protest merchandise has suddenly been showing up on Zazzle, such as the following two shirts, which joke about Christopher Tolkien's desire to censor any mention of his father that he hasn't approved or been paid for:

Filed Under: christopher tolkien, infringement, jrr tolkien, tolkien
Companies: zazzle

Does Re-Imagining Lord Of The Rings From The Perspective Of Mordor Violate Tolkien's Copyrights?

from the will-we-find-out? dept

Slashdot recently pointed us to a Salon book review of a re-imagining of Lord of the Rings from the perspective of the "losers" in Mordor. The book, entitled The Last Ring-bearer was written by a Russian paleontologist, who has offered up a free download of the English translation.

In Yeskov's retelling, the wizard Gandalf is a war-monger intent on crushing the scientific and technological initiative of Mordor and its southern allies because science "destroys the harmony of the world and dries up the souls of men!" He's in cahoots with the elves, who aim to become "masters of the world," and turn Middle-earth into a "bad copy" of their magical homeland across the sea. Barad-dur, also known as the Dark Tower and Sauron's citadel, is, by contrast, described as "that amazing city of alchemists and poets, mechanics and astronomers, philosophers and physicians, the heart of the only civilization in Middle-earth to bet on rational knowledge and bravely pitch its barely adolescent technology against ancient magic."

Sounds fascinating.

Of course, it also raises some copyright questions. The Tolkien estate is notoriously over-protective of Tolkien's copyrights, and while the Salon review brushes over the copyright issues, it appears that there's some stirring among Tolkien rightsholders to potentially go after this book. If they do so, they may run into trouble. The scenario seems remarkably similar to the case of The Wind Done Gone, a retelling of Gone With The Wind from the perspective of a slave in the original work. That book went through a big legal dispute and was eventually seen as legal, though the case was settled, rather than leading all the way to a full ruling on the topic.

In an era of growing "fan fiction," which can often go quite beyond the bounds of the stereotypical "fan fiction," this issue is going to become more and more important, and it's about time that the courts made it clear that such rewrites are perfectly legal reimaginings that do not violate anyone's copyright.

Filed Under: copyright, lord of the rings, tolkien

Do J.R.R. Tolkien's Kids Deserve Money For The Lord Of The Rings Movies?

from the what-did-they-have-to-do-with-it dept

There are some competing opinion pieces in the LA Times, starting off with one siding with J.R.R. Tolkien's kids in their legal fight for royalties from the Lord of the Rings trilogy movies:

Tolkien obviously isn't Peter Jackson, who directed the franchise, or Liv Tyler or Viggo Mortensen, who starred in it, or New Line Cinema, the studio that financed it, or Miramax, which owned the film rights for a second but couldn't get the movie made, or producer Saul Zaentz, who bought the rights in 1976. He's just the guy who dreamed up the cosmology, the whole shebang of hobbits and dwarfs, orcs, ents, wargs, trolls, whatnot.

Then, there's the other side, pointing out that while it might be true that they legally deserve the money, it doesn't make any common sense:

I find it offensive to common sense to argue that the heirs of J.R.R. Tolkien (who are as dismayingly numerous as Kennedys in the court filing) are entitled to a shilling for work in which they had no hand and which was completed in 1949.

Most of the essay focuses on the question of the length of copyright, which we all know has been expanded to ridiculous lengths. However, it does seem like a reasonable question to ask why the kids of Tolkien deserve money for a movie they had nothing to do with based on an idea they had nothing to do with.

Filed Under: copyright, heirs, lord of the rings, tolkien