Sadly I doubt that would fix the problem as lawyers are just fanatical to the point of being zealots to protect the right of their check holder. Person gives the command to sue and those lawyers will reek an ever lasting vengeance on people. It really does svck that copyright material is so extreme lately that it's hard for anyone to make anything anymore.

Truthfully the whole court system is screwed up and there needs to be a common sense law put into place to stop some of these idiot suits.

Shameful.

Who wants to copyright the name Zaentz?

I thought there were supposed to be measures to prevent vexatious lawsuits and the like, but if there are, they're evidently far too limited in scope.

Well, that svcks for the pub, but it seems like an appropriate lawsuit. The pub is clearly attempting to profit by creating an association between itself and Tolkien's works.

tolkien didn't create the word hobbit, according to information in the second (or first link in the first reply) the word hobbit was around 40 years before tolkien wrote his book

Why stop here! Let them sue those http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/migration-hobbits.html, and yet another http://www.tripadvisor.ca/Restaurant_Review-g155033-d686486-Reviews-Cafe_Le_Hobbit-Quebec_City_Quebec.html.

Even if they use the movies posters and whatnot... it's free publicity, you (e.i. copyright zealots) idiots!

Read the article. The Pub has drinks named after characters from Tolkien's works, uses images from the movies on it's loyalty card, and uses the characters in their advertisemants. Their not being sued because of the word (this would be a trademark dispute if that were the case), their being sued because of their conduct.

err.... if that bit was true then this should never have made the news anywhere

I think this is sad, too,

Yea or Hobbitt. Then they will all see how ridiculous the lawsuit really is.

I'm struggling to see how it's in any way appropriate. Even if it's legally enforceable (which remains to be seen) it seems to be entirely unnecessary.

Hmm...In hindsight this wasn't a smart post

- Should just drop a 'b' from the name or just remove that flag thing, surely they can't own the word hobbit.

Copyright the word "Copyright"...

Personally I blame lawyers because if you push hard enough you can get things into the court system. In all honesty i'm surprised there hasn't been a lawsuit of some kind where a man sues himself for stupidity and wins. Dumbest thing is you can't be tried for the same crime twice, but you can try numerous times to get the charges against you removed.

So far the worst excuses for crimes being committed including murder are "mentally challenged", and "I was on drugs." There was some case a while back that tried to get the charges against a person removed/reduced due to him being stressed out for drinking too much Red Bull.

This whole thing is just another example of how vile and disgusting publishers are. We created the concept of copyrights in order to protect creators and to inspire innovation, these filthy scum have manipulated our laws to the point where the only people who benefit are the corpulent middlemen who create nothing and stifle innovation for the sake of marketability.

I don't know about you, but I no longer purchase anything that isn't self published. My goal is to get enough people to join in my boycott to bankrupt the publishing industry and send those vermin back to whatever sulfer-infused pit they came from (probably Insurance).

The Pub is using another person's works, that they do not have the rights to, in order to help them make a profit. It's a completely legitimate copyright complaint. If this pub didn't want to be sued, they shouldn't have started using characters and imagery from Tolkien's works and it's various adaptations to advertise and label their merchandise.

You guys are both thinking of trademarks. Copyright is a little different. Seriously, read the article in the first post. This pub is doing a lot more then using "Hobbit" in their name.

I disagree. Legally, this may be the case, but you'll have your work cut out convincing me that it's ethically proper in this instance: I do agree that copyright holders should have a certain amount of protection, but cases like this are really nothing more than the sort of corporate bullying that's getting out of hand these days, and the negative PR must surely outweigh any possible benefits.

Typical Internet reaction.

FIGHT THE POWER MAN!

So apparently it's illegal to be a fan of something because of some pictures and possibly words. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35TbGjt-weA..

Remove the signs with the characters on them, photoshops images of the stars to make them wear similiar outfits.
I'm pretty sure millions of things have been named frodo and Gandalf in the past and present, don't change the cocktails because it doesn't infringe anything on that front.
They don't own the star's face so that's pretty null (Unless he is in costume, then just get one without and photoshop another)

Well, the main legal problem is that they were apparently using images from the Peter Jackson movie. They should have rather (more tastefully) used artwork by John Howe, Ted Nasmith, or Greg & Tim Hildebrandt. Maybe then the Hollywood goons wouldn't have had as much of a case. They still own the licensing rights to certain LotR's images and movie-related things, but I seriously doubt they own creative works derived from Tolkien's original writings and artwork. They still would have had to pay the artists involved, but better to pay a (relatively) 'struggling' artist than a Hollywood conglomerate. With the artist, you will probably get a better deal and be more appreciated as a fan.

There's a difference between being a fan and using another person's works in an attempt to make a profit.

Don't waste your time fighting the power, just trim the fat. Publishers abuse Copyright law to their own exclusive benefit. The authors receive very little benefit and innovation is suppressed which means that the laws are working to counter their intent.

Boycott publishers and the problem goes bankrupt.

Seems like a completely harmless themed pub to me. Let's just say I'm not a big fan of the way companies treat copyright as a means to sue any and everyone who so much as references their material. It's not like the owner of the pub in any way claimed that they produced the films and wrote the books. It's just an overprotective and harsh way to treat some innocent fans. If it were my works they themed a pub around, I'd be quite flattered.

You'd also be completely within your rights to sue them, assuming you even owned the rights to your own works. (be careful what you sign when it comes to publishers)