@Voodzik:
Actually, nobody SHOULD complain about the name Zolo. It's a little irking because it's a person, with a character behind him, and not an attack but while we're at it the name Zoro is trademarked in the states. I see both the zolo question and the gear 2 dillema in the same category, namely: here's a quarter, go buy yourself a life.
From the Newbie's Guide to One Piece, a section that I just added.
1. Zolo versus Zoro
A. Did Viz change Zoro because of a copyright issue with Zorro?
No, you cannot copyright a name, period. Want me to say it again? Because I will and the truth won't have changed in the time that it took me to write it. YOU CANNOT COPYRIGHT A WORD OR NAME, in particular one that previously existed in another language. You can however trademark a name that appears in a particular fashion for the purposes of marketing.
Original works can be copyrighted, but not names. I can't stress that enough.
B. Did Viz change Zoro to Zolo because Disney holds the Zorro trademark?
No, and I swear to God that the next person who says this will get stabbed in the face.
B1. Disney does not own the Zorro trademark. Zorro Productions does.
B2. The only live Zoro trademark belongs to an Italian company that produces luxury goods. All Shueisha would have to do is simply use Roronoa Zoro on any merchandise, which easily distinguishes between the two trademarks, though I seriously doubt that Viz would be cranking out faux leather Zoro suitcases. The Italian company would have to prove that Shueisha using Zoro was with the intent of creating brand confusion (which means that they use the name to make consumers think that product that they are purchasing is made by someone else) and that Shueisha's use of the Zoro trademark represents a clear financial loss to them. Seeing as how it's unlikely that the two would be in competition, that would be a very, very hard case for the Italian company to win. Same for Zorro Productions, which would have to build a case around how a character whose name is spelled differently, is not Spanish, is not a masked avenger, and who is not based in Spanish California infringes on their trademark. Oda may well have named Zoro for the Zorro, but that's not really enough to win a lawsuit.
B3. The final thing to consider is this:
Shueisha did not bother to trademark the name Roronoa Zoro, Monkey D. Luffy, or any of the other character names from One Piece until after the animated series was butchered upon release here in the US. Following the release, it was only about three months until the corporation chose to file trademark claims on the characters. It seems eminently reasonable that Shueisha's sudden decision to trademark the names had to do with the release of the anime. Furthermore, they chose to trademark Roronoa Zolo, which is almost certainly because 4Kids chose to use that translation. Had they wanted Roronoa Zoro, there was absolutely nothing stopping them from taking it. Especially seeing as how there are actually more live Zolo trademarks than there are Zoro.