Whether the company is explicitly named as Hasbro or Hasbio, the intent and intellectual property fluffies are based on is still very clear. Having one letter change wouldn’t hold up in court, if we’re concerned about copystrikes or whatever. What may actually defend Fluffies from a legal attack of that nature would be the idea of fluffies being wholly divorced from MLP and its creators now, or that fluffies are parodies (and thus allowable by law).
But there’s no reason why Hasbro or Peta would sue the greater fluffy community. It’d just draw attention to the fandom, and its associated less-than-stellarbox content, which is something neither groups would want.
I would join forces with @Marakasaya1 to create the most heinous pieces in the history of the following if some ultra clown world timeline plays out that FC gets sued.
I am of the opinion that more alternatives to the Hasbio name should be created if people really want to move fluffies away from MLP. I can see the Hasbio name working as parody/satire, but not a lot of the work feels like satire.
I go with Hasblo for the parent company and change the product names (My Retarded Horsie, Dungheaps and Douchebags, etc) but PeTA is a political entity and first amendment protections in Burgerland here are strong.
I had thought HasBRO was for the BRONY MLP division of HAS. Holstein-Apfelpherd-Saudi MegaCorp. Erm, that’s in my universe. The BIO division deals with Fluffies, Anthro-Fluffies, Jellenheimers, and other small off shoots. In my universe, it was a whistle blower who blown the lid on the Cleveland division. PETA doesn’t exist anymore as a small group of ASPCA legal action and political action groups sued them to no longer being a company.
Common, people, we have Head Canon universes for a reason. And I don’t think anyone on Earth 001 (Us, IRL) would be interested in our community. I’d like them try and understand how we are and not lose a screw or two trying to legally annoy us.
Copyright infringement means using other people’s work, either authored or derived from said authored works. If it’s not wholesale or substantial copying of anything created by Hasbro, it’s not copyright infringement. I distinctly cannot recall Hasbro ever coming up with this fluffy pony stuff themselves.
Trademark infringement means using a trademark for commercial purposes such that someone might confuse your mark with the actual trademark. Merely mentioning “Hasbro” as a word won’t invoke IP lawsuits like black magic.
In essence: There isn’t any infringement here. Not even close.
