Happy New Year, Folks! and some replies

[Torsten Wesley Adair]

On Mon, 3 Jan 1994, David A Gerstein wrote:
> 	FULL NAMES OF CHARACTERS:  Okay, then... if Goofy's real name
> IS Dippy Dawg, then it doesn't follow that Mickey is going to be
> Mortimer.  Please remember... the character has to have actually HAD
> the name in a finished product.  By the time any films were in
> production, Mickey had lost his earlier monicker.
> 	Mickey = Michel Mouse (given in cartoon "Symphony Hour")
> 	Donald = Donald Fauntleroy Duck
> 	Goofy = Dippy "Goofy" Dawg

Those of you out there who are die-hard fans might wish to look at the
first Outland comic book collection by Berke Breathed ("Bloom County"),
wherein, Mortimer, Mickey's brother, comes back and gets revenge on the
current "restructuring" of Disney by Michael Eisner.  
 
> the Mississippi" by Don Rosa.  Please note, Don... no cover "LO$"
> special logo shown on that issue in Diamond's catalogue.  Which brings
> me to:
> 
> 	OFFICIAL TITLE OF LO$:  I believe that it's only to be called
> "The Life of Scrooge" in the U. S.  Don, you probably forgot that
> there was the Celestial Arts book titled, "Uncle Scrooge McDuck:  His
> Life and Times."  This is just a reversal of your title, and Gladstone
> presumably felt that their later book collections would be hopelessly
> confused by dealers with the older book if they used the planned
> title.

Yeah.  Right.  The Barks book is large and thick, and costs about $30 in
paperback.  The Lo$ book(s) will be graphic novel size (~28 cm), thin, and
probably cost $20.

As a student of comic books since 1984, I had not heard, nor seen a copy,
of Barks' book until I looked for it last year.  I would be surprised if
any comicbook store dealers even knew about Barks' book, or even Barks,
period.  

> 	Although I have never asked John Clark ANYTHING about this
> one, so I'm really just guessing.  I may be wrong, and perhaps the
> whole title IS being used.

If I were Gladstone, I would not worry about the confusion.  The book was
published many years ago, and aside from trademarks, I don't think there
is any legal basis for not using a title which is similar to another book.

Torsten Adair	torsten at cwis.unomaha.edu	Omaha, NE, USA