Sorry, but I find Rowling's credibility higher than Stouffer's. A biographical bit here (the bit at the beginning) shows the creative background of Rowling's books, along with details of how she came up with characters and settings.

This article, which shows more details of the trial, casts doubt on the validity of Stouffer's claims, and indicates that she may have cooked up the evidence.

"Stouffer has not produced any evidence indicating that there has been actual confusion between the two uses," wrote Schwartz, who also disputed allegations by Stouffer that she had received e-mails from readers noting similarities between her work and Rowling's.



"There is nothing in the record, beyond Stouffer's conclusory allegations, which indicates Stouffer ever received such letters," Schwartz wrote.

Schwartz also questioned whether she created the "Larry Potter" character before Rowling's series debuted. A title page and other materials supposedly dating back to the 1980s used technology not in existence at the time, he ruled.

In addition, Schwartz found that Stouffer had produced invoices for sales that never took place and submitted an advertisement from the 1980s that was later altered to include the word "Muggles."



None of my internet used book connections shows any "Larry Potter" book older than 2001. This is a scam, and not even a very good one. I'm surprised it got as far in court as it did.

As for "Kiki," now we're reaching a bit. Odds of Rowling having seen Kiki before the Disney release in September of 1998 are slim to none.