Goodgulf:
Rebranding heroes can be easy.
Here's an example:
In the city of Hostham (or any other name you pick) there was a boy whose wealthy parents were killed in a drive by shooting. Driven by a need to avenge them, he spent years training to be a crime fighter who stalks the night. Now criminals fear the name of Owlman - the city's wise defender. He has a wide array of tools - including the Owl Mobile, the Owl Nest (a hidden cave under his mansion), Owl-barangs, the Owl Belt (a utility belt stuffed with tools), and more.
Well, I'm hardly an expert on American copyright law, yet I believe that the issue here involves British copyright practices, since this Library is hosted in the United Kingdom. Here in the U.S.A., at least in the past, companies have filed copyright infringement lawsuits based on the use of easily identifiable 'close copies' of their characters and/or specific settings.
However, in the U.S.A. companies generally don't file civil suits over internet 'fan fiction' accounts (spanking-oriented or otherwise) for a variety of reasons, notably that it's difficult to prove financial damages caused by them, while it's negative "PR" to push for punitive monetary damages against ordinary people just for posting online stories.
How such situations work in the U.K., including the use of 'close copies,' I'm unaware of that.
Of course, Owlman is an existing copyrighted comic book character:
https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Owlman_(DC)Which is another issue, since just about all of the best-sounding names for superheroes, superheroines and supervillains are copyrighted, primarily by DC Comics or the Marvel Comics Group, with the exception of those in the public domain.
Personally, I simply much prefer to somehow refer to the actual widely-know comic book characters... --C.K.