If you do not take every reasonable measure to protect your mark, you lose it.
Harry Potter isn't a trademark of Warner Bros. This is not a trademark case. LOL that's a shame, they only changed 2 letters ! pronouciation is almost identical
And you would know this because you speak Punjabi? Hopefully it'll compensate you for your poor math. They could have given any other title to their movie why choosing one so close to the blockbuster ?
Oh yes. The son of Harry is very close to "Harry Potter". You realize of course that Harry Potter is a character in the eponymous series of books, right? Not so much a movie. In another article I read, they admitted that Hari Putter started out as a joke when the first Harry Potter movie came out, so the name was definitely taken from them.
A joke huh? So protected free speech, by means of parody? And the odd thing about trademark laws, if you don't fight one violation, you run the risk of losing the right to fight any violation. So WB really has no choice but to fight it.
Again, this is not a trademark case, and WB doesn't own the Harry Potter trademark. Simply the movie rights. Since the movie is clearly about some bloke who is the son of some other bloke named Hari, I don't see any correlation at all.I'm fairly sure there's a Harry Potter-esque porn movie out there, which is a much more obvious rip-off. Harry Pots Her & The Philosophers Boner? It must exist somewhere. Why haven't they been sued?
Hilarious when you consider J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" is a ripoff of the original Harry Potter.
Unfortunately the irony is lost on the judicial system. However maybe it could help the case against Hari Puttar, claiming previous art? Whoops forgot. It's not a patent case either.