The report just said the button was a case of "intellectual property rights," without saying what kind of intellectual property rights, and the Colbert hat case said the same thing. The report on the button showed an image of the button, and there was nothing about it to suggest a trademarked Tolkien logo. The case of the book, however, is in part about using the layout of the cover to suggest an authorized Tolkien book (and it wasn't the anonymous commenter who pointed out that this is a case of publicity rights - the commenter corrected the wording about the filing of the suit - it was the lawyer who read the filings who said that).
The mystery lies not in the nature of the claim, but in whether the Tolkien Estate actually directed Zazzle to take down the button, or if it's just Zazzle playing CYA and deflecting blame onto the Estate.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-03-01 01:32 pm (UTC)The mystery lies not in the nature of the claim, but in whether the Tolkien Estate actually directed Zazzle to take down the button, or if it's just Zazzle playing CYA and deflecting blame onto the Estate.