Thanks for any input.

This statement does not state the case quite sufficiently, I’m afraid. From what the NYT article implies, the courts have rejected only the trademark claims of a bogus heir (or at least one with quite limited rights to Holmes–they mention a polish Holmes movie, for instance). These claims for trademark on the Holmes character were most likely rejected because this “heir” was not even acknowledged as the owner of the extended copyrighted stories in the first place (the final collection of Holmes stories written after 1923). She was apparently trying an end-around to avoid the existing claim (since held up as legitimate, I guess) of copyright by Conan Doyle’s leagal estate.

Your comment above is misleading because it suggests that a trademark for Holmes and accompanying characters is unlikely to be allowed by US courts. However, the acknowledged owner of the few stories still under protection MAY be able to win such a suit involving a trademark. Hence, the hollywood film industry was willing to take a safer route by not challenging the copyright protection and coming to terms with the estate.

So, while it is clear that the stories written after 1923 cannot be reproduced without permission,and all the others are in public domain, the question remains: if someone creates a line of toy figures, for example–representing and named after the characters of Holmes, Watson, etc.,–are those toys based on material available in the public domain? It would seem so, as those characters and their defining traits were well established long before those final stories were written. Of course, copyright law is not that simple. If Disney makes another Snow White movie, does her character (at least as portrayed by Disney) then avoid going into the public domain for another xx years? Anyone know the answer to this quandry, or will it only be answered when a court has to make a judgemnet on it?