Stouffer Vs Rowling

Question J.K. Rowling is the author of the famous Harry Potter novels. She owns all trademarks associated with the books since 1997.
In 1996, a man named Stouffer started a small publishing company with the intent of publishing one short book about fantasy creatures called "muggles." The company folded and the book was never published. Stouffer did not register a trademark for "muggles." However, Stouffer sued Rowling for trademark infringement because she used the term "muggles" in her books to describe humans who were not witches or wizards. Who wins? Why? How would a court analyze the issues presented?

Stouffer is suing Rowling for trademark infringement due to use of the word "muggles" used in the Harry Potter collection of
Although it is strongly encouraged to register a trademark it is not necessary as federal protection also extends to trademarks that are not registered. Registration of a trademark gives constructive notice that the registrant has certain rights and priority to use the trademark how they please. Registration also helps inform the general public that there is already a trademark on this certain item and there may not be another trademark applied.
If Stouffer were to bring claims against Rowling, it is likely that they would be pursuant to Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, which states; "Any person who on or in connection with any goods or services, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, which-- (A) is likely to cause confusion... as to the origin… of his or her goods… shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act." Therefore, Stouffer could make claims of false representation and unfair
However, for there to be a violation in this instance it must be proven that the term was copied specifically from a previous work. Since Stouffer's book was not published, Rowling could not have known of the prior use of the term "muggles".
In order for the law to be violated Stouffer must prove that the term "muggles" is specific and has a secondary meaning. We believe Stouffer would not be able to prove the famousness of the term since a meaning had not been established in a way to in which it could confuse readers. Without an established trademark, chances are slim that the plaintiff could prove that JKR used the term unlawfully.
In cases where the Landham Act was violated a secondary meaning was established and the term related to a specific object or character. In this case, Stouffer would have to prove that "muggles" is inherently distinctive or it has become distinct because of years of exclusive use. By definition, trademarks are used to indicate the source of a good or product. Since the book was not available to the public a secondary meaning could not have been established. For this reason it is highly unlikely that this case holds any