I agree with ERROR404, there is a difference but...

I also feel that the Patents and Trademarks Laws have been mutated into some sort of big brother for the cry babies of society. I don't claim to be an expert on law by any means but have experienced rediculous cease and decist notices first hand for infringing on “Intellectual Property” rights.

Unless I'm misunderstanding this, I'm having trouble seeing the violation with selling the original artwork regardless of whether or not it was for charity in this case. Was the auction in question selling the original artist pieces of the characters or were they reproducing the characters with intent to sell them? That would make the difference for me, the characters are identifiable with DC. If not endorsed by DC, they would be counterfeit and should be considered a legitimate complaint, not necessarily against the person selling them, but rather by DC against their artists who are producing them.

Just my two cents... but the bottom line is that it's all about the money, corporatations, United States Patent and Trademark Office and individuals are all in it for money. It really makes no difference if the cause is for a charity because DC is not getting their royalty, maybe if 50% of the proceeds from the auctions were paid to DC this wouldn't have happened... I don't agree with it 100% but it's the way things work.

I recently bought a pack of gum and was surprsed to see the number 5 had been trademarked so be careful to never to use it. See more examples of Copyright and Trademark violations here.