<P> Rowling , along with Scholastic Press ( her American publisher ) and Warner Bros. ( holders of the series ' film rights ) , pre-empted Stouffer in 2002 with a suit of their own seeking a declaratory judgment that they had not infringed on any of Stouffer 's works . The court found in Rowling 's favour , granting summary judgment and holding that `` no reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the two parties ' works '' . During the course of the trial , it was held that Rowling proved `` by clear and convincing evidence , that Stouffer has perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony '' , including changing pages years after the fact to retroactively insert the word `` muggle '' . Her case was dismissed with prejudice and she was fined $50,000 for her `` pattern of intentional bad faith conduct '' in relation to her employment of fraudulent submissions , along with being ordered to pay a portion of the plaintiffs ' legal fees . Stouffer appealed the decision in 2004 , but in 2005 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling . In 2006 she stated on her website that she was planning to republish her books and was entertaining the possibility of another lawsuit against Warner Bros. , J.K. Rowling and Scholastic Press . </P>
<P> Rowling , along with Scholastic Press ( her American publisher ) and Warner Bros. ( holders of the series ' film rights ) , pre-empted Stouffer in 2002 with a suit of their own seeking a declaratory judgment that they had not infringed on any of Stouffer 's works . The court found in Rowling 's favour , granting summary judgment and holding that `` no reasonable juror could find a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the two parties ' works '' . During the course of the trial , it was held that Rowling proved `` by clear and convincing evidence , that Stouffer has perpetrated a fraud on the Court through her submission of fraudulent documents as well as through her untruthful testimony '' , including changing pages years after the fact to retroactively insert the word `` muggle '' . Her case was dismissed with prejudice and she was fined $50,000 for her `` pattern of intentional bad faith conduct '' in relation to her employment of fraudulent submissions , along with being ordered to pay a portion of the plaintiffs ' legal fees . Stouffer appealed the decision in 2004 , but in 2005 the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling . In 2006 she stated on her website that she was planning to republish her books and was entertaining the possibility of another lawsuit against Warner Bros. , J.K. Rowling and Scholastic Press . </P>
who owns the movie rights to harry potter
who owns the movie rights to harry potter
Warner Bros.
Warner Bros.