King's Speech suffers fresh impediment

"But no actors were harmed ..."

tytoc collie was astonished to read the following item, which he discovered via this link to All Headline News from the ever-vigilant Bob Boad.  Apparently

"The producer of “The King’s Speech", which has received 12 Academy Awards nominations, has settled a dispute with the American Humane Society over the use of its disclaimer phrase in the movie’s end credits. Producer Emile Sherman issued a statement saying that the issue with AHA has been resolved.  Sherman also assured that animals used in the making of the movie were not harmed. Sherman indicated that the producers were not aware that the phrase “no animals were harmed” had a trademark owned by AHA.

The society had sent a letter to Wesintein Co. asking the distributor of “The King’s Speech” to remove the phrase in the movie’s end credits.

AHA argued that its representatives never oversaw animals used in the shooting of the film and never read the script of the movie, which it requires before allowing the use of the phrase guaranteeing that animal rights were protected in the making of a movie".

tytoc collie is trying hard not to be too astonished at the thought that the words "No animals were harmed" have somehow become the property of a single body. Surely the words "No animals were harmed" are descriptive of all goods and services which have been made or which are performed without any animals being hurt? Would some noble American practitioner like to stand up and justify the registration?  Merpel speculates as to whether it is open to film makers and others to use phrases such as "Unharmed were all animals", "Harmed not were all the animals" or suchlike.