He was doing buisness as "Harold Potter, Private Investigations' well before 1997--as the book is written in the past tense and was published in '89 or '90. So, it would have been trademarked. Also, it's not an attept to cash in on his story, but a case could be made that it's trying to cash in on his name, being both easily recognizable, easy to remember, and famous for the metahuman connection.
While "Harold Potter" and "Harry Potter" are not exactly the same, they are close enough to cause confusion, whether deliberate or accidental. See the Mike Rowe Soft cases.
It is also possible, due to the fact that Harold Potter is fabulously successful in the late eighties and early nineties, and a voracious reader, that he's already had a line of "Harry Potter, Criminal Investigations" books written.
I think the best way to do it would be the Tom Riddle books, instead. Joanne working with Harold to write the series of books is another option. He's a voracious reader, and getting a series of stories "based" on a fictional, child-version of him, where he can help with some useful investigation and procedural information might be successful. Or even her just asking to use his name. He'd probably be honored.
Also, while the law does state that you can always use your name to do business no matter what, if your name happens to be remotely capable of causing confusion with an existing brand--you can expect a large number of (sometimes) justified lawsuits until you come up with a way to differentiate and disassociate yourself from the product(s) in question. Look into the Olympics--they sue the pants off of anyone, especially existing businesses, who have any name remotely associated with "Olympics" in any town they come to. Again, look for the Mike Rowe Soft lawsuits. Joanne Rowling couldn't have survived the first lawsuit. And, finding someone with a famous name to sell you the rights to it for $1, doesn't work. It is seen as an attempt to capitalize on the existing name by a legality trick and have your defense thrown out of court.
To get a better idea, consider using the titles "Scott Summers and the Sorceror's Plot," "Bill Cosby and the Sorceror's Plot" or "Chris Bale and the Sorceror's Plot." None of those would survive the lawsuit. The owners of those names would have practically no trouble winning a lawsuit, even with the "we paid X, $1 for the use of their name" defense. It's a blatant attempt to cash in on a well-known name. And they'll have a lot more, better-paid, lawyers than a starting Joanne Rowling would.
The problem isn't in using a "common" name, it's in using a name that's already trademarked, associated with the Metahuman community, and has recognition. Whether or not her plan was to use it as advertising, that's what she's doing. And that's punishable in court. With Supertemps being international . . . she'd probably pull a FASA and change the name without too much argument.
While "Harold Potter" and "Harry Potter" are not exactly the same, they are close enough to cause confusion, whether deliberate or accidental. See the Mike Rowe Soft cases.
It is also possible, due to the fact that Harold Potter is fabulously successful in the late eighties and early nineties, and a voracious reader, that he's already had a line of "Harry Potter, Criminal Investigations" books written.
I think the best way to do it would be the Tom Riddle books, instead. Joanne working with Harold to write the series of books is another option. He's a voracious reader, and getting a series of stories "based" on a fictional, child-version of him, where he can help with some useful investigation and procedural information might be successful. Or even her just asking to use his name. He'd probably be honored.
Also, while the law does state that you can always use your name to do business no matter what, if your name happens to be remotely capable of causing confusion with an existing brand--you can expect a large number of (sometimes) justified lawsuits until you come up with a way to differentiate and disassociate yourself from the product(s) in question. Look into the Olympics--they sue the pants off of anyone, especially existing businesses, who have any name remotely associated with "Olympics" in any town they come to. Again, look for the Mike Rowe Soft lawsuits. Joanne Rowling couldn't have survived the first lawsuit. And, finding someone with a famous name to sell you the rights to it for $1, doesn't work. It is seen as an attempt to capitalize on the existing name by a legality trick and have your defense thrown out of court.
To get a better idea, consider using the titles "Scott Summers and the Sorceror's Plot," "Bill Cosby and the Sorceror's Plot" or "Chris Bale and the Sorceror's Plot." None of those would survive the lawsuit. The owners of those names would have practically no trouble winning a lawsuit, even with the "we paid X, $1 for the use of their name" defense. It's a blatant attempt to cash in on a well-known name. And they'll have a lot more, better-paid, lawyers than a starting Joanne Rowling would.
The problem isn't in using a "common" name, it's in using a name that's already trademarked, associated with the Metahuman community, and has recognition. Whether or not her plan was to use it as advertising, that's what she's doing. And that's punishable in court. With Supertemps being international . . . she'd probably pull a FASA and change the name without too much argument.