But that standard is too strict. I mean, this specific book isn't a replacement for Dr. Seuss. No one is going to buy this for their kids (or new graduates) who don't already know the Seuss book. And obviously no one is going to consume this instead of Picard season 2.
It's definitely not competing with the original. But it's trading on the originals, which is clearly sort of unfair. So the court wants to find against them. But the only tools in the box are these clumsy arguments about "transformation" that would seem to apply equally to this thing if it wasn't commercial. But if it wasn't a commercial product, it wouldn't have seemed unfair!
Basically, the law just needs a clearer standard here for what it clearly wants to do.
It's definitely not competing with the original. But it's trading on the originals, which is clearly sort of unfair. So the court wants to find against them. But the only tools in the box are these clumsy arguments about "transformation" that would seem to apply equally to this thing if it wasn't commercial. But if it wasn't a commercial product, it wouldn't have seemed unfair!
Basically, the law just needs a clearer standard here for what it clearly wants to do.