It’s not about a legal claim on a word or words. What we’re talking about here is intellectual property copyright. Just because the typography is different than what you see on the book covers, these shirts that say “Twilight” are very clearly meant to be THAT “Twilight”, and not just the phenomenon whereby day turns to night.

For fans to make their own home-made products as a sign of appreciation is one thing (no money changes hands, then no-harm-no-foul). The problem here is that by SELLING the merchandise without being licensed, the owner of said copyright doesn’t receive their due royalties. Now, if Stephanie Meyers didn’t care about that, there’s such a thing as Creative Commons Licensing, which can give permission for non-commercial usage of copyrighted/trademarked stuff for the fans, or even full commercial rights, if the legal owner so chooses. Since Twilight is in fact NOT licensed under Creative Commons, Ms. Meyer demonstrates that she DOES care, and would rather get paid royalties if anyone is making money off her creations (title, characters and concepts alike).

Here is where Zazzle’s culpability comes in: they are not selling these items on behalf of their users out of the goodness of their own heart for no profit– they do in fact make money off this. Furthermore, because they’re not just selling the items but actually MAKING them, they are 100% complicit in the bootlegging process.

Take skatersollie’s analogy:
Scenario 1) you hire “Company A” to print counterfeit currency for you on their equipment, you’re both in the hot seat.
Scenario 2) You BUY a printing press from “Company A”, then use it to make counterfeit currency, that’s all on you– they just sold you the equipment, they were not directly involved in the crime.

Zazzle is CLEARLY in scenario 2 here. They can try and claim no fault for their users’ violation of copyright, but since they’re the ones actually MANUFACTURING this stuff, they should really know better. They’re clearly turning a blind eye to the infringement for profit.