LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - “The King’s Speech” may have a new speech impediment on its path to the Academy Awards.

The American Humane Association has contacted producers of the film and is threatening legal action over the use of phrase, “No animals were harmed,” in the end credits.

The public advocacy group has a trademark on this phrase and over the years, has leveraged its rights so as to be involved in film productions and certify that no “animal actors” get harmed or killed in studio films.

The organization typically demands advanced copies of scripts and daily call sheets to review and also requires on-set access whenever animals are used.

The AHA says it was never invited to monitor “The King’s Speech,” however, and so it demands that The Weinstein Company, which is distributing the highly-praised film, remove the assurance to movie-goers that no animals were harmed during the production.

“We are in conversation with them and hope to work something out,” says Karen Rosa, vice president of the film & television unit at the AHA.

The end-credit animals disclaimer has become so commonplace over the years that most people probably don’t realize it’s a registered trademark. Last year, the AHA sent out cease-and-desist letters to the producers and distributors of five films, including Oscar-nominated “District 9.” However, the AHA has never gone to court to enforce its door-opening trademark.

Ken Basin, an attorney at Greenberg Glusker, says the AHA trademark is probably valid, comparing it to the “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” as well as other certification marks typically found in the food and beverage industry. For example, the Idaho Potato Commission has registered “Grown in Idaho” to protect its prized starchy crop.

If the AHA indeed files a lawsuit, though, it’s going to be an expensive proposition. Basin says that gathering surveys to prove consumer confusion in trademark cases can be costly and few of these cases get decided on summary judgment. The AHA could try to show how the use of the trademark by The King’s Speech devalued its certification system at large, and demand great damages, but Basin believes the AHA would probably have to settle for whatever “The King’s Speech” would have paid to take advantage of the AHA’s seal of approval. In other words, a costly lawsuit for a small reward.

“This would be about making a point,” concludes Basin.

Potentially, a high profile point, though, given that the film is on the cusp of a big speech at the Oscars. A lawsuit by a former Iraqi veteran against “The Hurt Locker” a few days before last year’s ceremony didn’t interfere with that film bringing home the prize for Best Picture, but Hollywood has its good share of zealous animal rights advocates who might be swayed by word from the town’s animal rights monitor.

Can “The King’s Speech” rectify the situation by just changing the phrasing? It depends, says Rosa. “It depends on how close the language is,” she says. “If there’s any implication of an endorsement, it could still cause confusion.”