You can't hold a patent to a cartoon drawing of a mouse (that you're implying is the character Mickey Mouse)
You can hold a design patent for the look of a tangible object - e.g. the rounded corners of an iPhone. You can also hold a design patent for particularly novel typefaces (fonts), the layout of a screen (e.g. like Norton Commander's twin directory listings on the left and right) and for computer icons, but that only covers them when they're displayed on screen.
So you could get a patent for the stylised depiction of a mouse as an icon, but only in that context.
If you wanted to flex ownership of a fictional character design, you get that by copyright, not patent. And the copyright law on derivative works is what protects that fiction character design from being copied or evolved by others. But it can't stop them parodying your design in order to ridicule it (specifically), so you don't have absolute control over it.
This is why I don't like the use of the term "IP" or "intellecual property", as it completely muddies the waters as to what your actual rights are, and what limitations of "ownership" there are.
// You can't hold a patent to a cartoon drawing of a mouse //
No, cartoons are protected by copyright, not by patents. And if I'm not mistaken, the original comment which wondered if a general vibe could be intellectual property was talking about something which would be protected by copyright as well.
But the same principle holds for patents. E.g. patenting an algorithm. It doesn't matter what language the algorithm is implemented in, whether you are running it on a binary computer or on some kind of a Chinese room set up, etc etc.
Think about how different two turing machines can be which implement the same algorithm. They don't even have to use the same symbols or states. They could print their outputs in English, French or any other natural language. The only thing that all Turing machines which implement the same algorithm have in common is a "vibe". Same kind of general vibe which the original commenter was talking about.
You definitely can't patent or copyright "a general vibe". You can copyright a specific expression; "Harry Potter" is copyrightable but not "boy wizards".
You can patent the novel parts of an invention (and in the US, business processes), but most things are not novel, and fictional things are not patentable.
The "Harry Potter Universe" is a collection of specific characters and specific locations. That is what's protected by copyright. You can totally make your own original story about a boy wizard, a school for magical people somewhere in the Scottish Highlands, and so on. You can totally repeat the "vibe" if you like, provided you don't base it on the specifics of Harry Potter.
To give some concrete examples:
Sherlock Holmes (and the "Sherlock Holmes Universe" if you like) used to be protected by copyright. While it was, there were thousands of competing books about detectives, including Maigret (with his distinctive pipe and overcoat, really rather a lot like Holmes), Miss Marple, Poirot, Lord Peter Wimsey, and so on. "The vibe" of detective fiction was very much not copyrightable.
Furthemore, Dracula was a specific book, and certain works like Nosferatu did copy it. However the "vibe" of Dracula is vampires, and vampires are ancient folklore. There have been countless works of vampire fiction not infringing on Dracula's copyright. They just didn't copy Dracula. It's not that hard to do.
Musicians can copyright the melody and lyrics of their music, but they can't copyright the harmony, rhythm, and arrangement. If they could, we just wouldn't have music. An entire genre - blues - uses the same chord progression to produce hundreds of thousands of unique songs, but all within the basic structure. They are not copying each other, they're following the rules of a genre -- a "vibe". You can't copyright a vibe.
You can hold a design patent for the look of a tangible object - e.g. the rounded corners of an iPhone. You can also hold a design patent for particularly novel typefaces (fonts), the layout of a screen (e.g. like Norton Commander's twin directory listings on the left and right) and for computer icons, but that only covers them when they're displayed on screen.
So you could get a patent for the stylised depiction of a mouse as an icon, but only in that context.
If you wanted to flex ownership of a fictional character design, you get that by copyright, not patent. And the copyright law on derivative works is what protects that fiction character design from being copied or evolved by others. But it can't stop them parodying your design in order to ridicule it (specifically), so you don't have absolute control over it.
This is why I don't like the use of the term "IP" or "intellecual property", as it completely muddies the waters as to what your actual rights are, and what limitations of "ownership" there are.