Pretty much, though the issue is more along the lines of the name "Scrolls" along with the content attached to it being similar enough to cause confusion among the "average person", if they could infer a connection between the products then it's a violation.azraelthor said:
What your not understanding is that a copyright goes beyond the simple copyrighting of a name.
It's not an issue where this one violation would let someone really screw them, it's a matter of how this kind of thing helps to establish a precedent. Thus, chasing down everyone who in some way comes close to their copyright is in their best interests. If they lose here it's not the end of the world, but if say they wind up with a bunch of people with similar, fantasy related "Scrolls" type names, then they could be in trouble if someone does something really outrageous as that person can point to the other people and say "well, we're not going much further than they are".
While not a perfect analogy think of the whole "Scrolls" thing as being similar to how the "World Wildlife Fund" pretty much forced the World Wrestling Federation to change their name. Totally differant names and organizations, where there should be no confusion right? Well the acronym "WWF" was causing people looking for the "World Wildlife Fund" to hit pro-wrestling sites and have problems finding them since there was so much more pro-wrestling fandom. The point is that it's not a situation where there even has to be a direct connection in "products", just something close enough to cause confusion to the everyman for a copyright to be defended/upheld. In this case there hadn't been an obvious conflict for a long time, and little real precedent to sway things either way, the case was going to give The Fund the advantage since they were established first, I beleive The Wrestlers wound up backing down and just changed the name and it never went to court even if the management thought about it because really they didn't have any precedents to fight with against The Fund.
