LG

Fine, Pat. You go make the entire case disappear. I'll hang out here in Wonderland with Alice, who read your signature and thinks that you will find the affair “hardly enjoyable” but not for the reasons you think.

Ownership of a trademark is not dependent upon registration of that mark. THE WAY INTERNATIONAL is a valid trademark, which TWI has been using since the mid-seventies. Many of the legal protections of trademark rights are not dependent upon registration. Of the four counts in TWI’s complaint, only Count 1 depends on the marks being registered. In particular, the cybersquatting count would be valid even if TWI had never registered any trademarks.

Non-religious goods or services offered by anyone, under any name, have nothing to do with this matter. Titles of books have nothing to do with this matter. Other religious organizations with “the way” as part of their name, with or without “international”, have nothing to do with this matter. Opposition to TWI’s application to register the word mark THE WAY INTERNATIONAL has nothing to do with this matter. Those are all merely attempts to distract from the issues, and will be seen as such. The Court is not stupid. Other domain names have nothing to do with this matter, either. However, the fact that TWI defended its claimed rights regarding one of the domains Pat cites and the decision of the arbitration panel in that case tend to undermine several of Pat’s arguments. The following two quotes are from that decision, which can be read HERE. Now this is not a decision of a U.S. District Court, but the reasoning behind such a decision is likely to be similar. In Pat’s case, there is no question that he was aware of TWI and its trademarks, whether or not he was aware of any trademark registrations. He had no legitimate interest in the domain name. He chose it specifically with TWI in mind. He initially used it, in part, to defame TWI. He later again used that domain to defame TWI, solicit donations, and advertise his computer services, through links he placed there. Still later, he attempted to profit from the sale of the domain. That issue is clear, or should be to anyone who is not blinded by hatred of TWI.

excathedra, If we would deny the protections of law to TWI, then we would have no right to claim them for ourselves or anyone else.

Pat, That exhibit does indicate that those points of the complaint are false, but it doesn’t indicate deceit. It’s extremely unlikely that two reputable law firms would intentionally attempt to deceive the court regarding that matter. Much more likely is an error in record keeping and/or communication. The lawyers handling the matters are different, and the TWI people involved may be different also. It’s not unreasonable to raise it but I think your estoppel by laches defense will probably fail, for two reasons. First, TWI did not fail to defend their claim in a timely manner. They communicated their demands to you at that time and appear to have reasonably concluded that you complied with their demands. Shortly after you received that letter, you stopped using both the name “The Way of Christ Ministry” and the domain “thewayinternational.com.” You began using the name “The Path of Christ Ministry” and hosted it at “waychrist.com,” where it is still hosted. That TWI didn’t pursue the matter further at that time is understandable. The second reason I think that defense will probably fail is that the delay did not prejudice you, or entrap you, so to speak. That is an important element of such a defense. Afterthought: If anything, I think that the delay may work to TWI’s advantage. Your acceding to their demands can be portrayed as an acknowledgement of their validity. That TWI didn’t pursue you further at that time could undermine your claims of malicious conduct against you. I don’t know how TWI’s lawyers will spin that, but I could spin it to make TWI seem to be acting charitably toward you. (I wouldn’t, because I don’t think they know the meaning of charity.)

OK, Pat. Although I doubt if you really wanted this, here are a few comments about TWI's complaint. Points 1-25: Applicable sections of the U.S. Code are correctly cited. The U.S. District Court, District of Vermont, has jurisdiction as stated and the venue is proper. The parties are as represented. The statements regarding TWI’s history and trademarks are correct, except for a possible minor error or two. Many of the characterizations, which are from TWI’s perspective, are arguable. For example, conduct that TWI considers malicious, Pat does not. Points 26-34: Essentially correct, except possibly for points 28, 31, and 33. Points 28 and 31 depend on TWI not being previously aware that Pat used "thewayinternational.com" to host or to redirect traffic to “The Way of Christ Ministry” website. The correspondence Pat published regarding the dispute over “The Way of Christ Ministry” (HERE) does not mention an Internet domain. It is possible that Pat has other correspondence that does. Point 33 depends on the cited exhibit being as represented. (I suspect that it is, because it would be foolish to falsely describe the exhibit.) Counts I-IV (Points 35-60): The citations of law are applicable to the counts. The counts and the points supporting them are arguable, of course, but they are not frivolous. Count III seems pretty obvious to me.

Pat, It's not about despising or not despising any person or organization. It's about more important things, like law and wisdom. I support your right to publish any opinions you desire and any truthful information you wish about TWI. If that were the issue in a lawsuit, I might even actively help you. But that’s not the issue. You could publish what you want just as effectively without using any form or derivative of "the way" or "the way international" in a name or web address. Actually, you could do it more effectively, because your attempts to use such forms or derivatives have caused you to expend time and money that you could better spend elsewhere. You have already lost one trademark dispute with TWI. In that one, your position was at least defensible, but you lacked the resources to defend it. Consequently, you wasted quite a bit of time and money, to no avail. In this dispute, your position is indefensible, IMO, and again you lack the resources to defend it, even if it were defensible. TWI, on the other hand, stands on pretty solid legal ground, IMO, and has plenty of resources to defend its position. Legally, I don't think that you should prevail and practically, I don't think that you can prevail. Since you say (probably sarcastically) that you look forward to it, I may go through TWI’s complaint and comment on it in a future post.

I see that my post that was held for moderation because of a “trigger word” has still not shown up. I’ll post essentially the same thing again, with the trigger word (a surname beginning with “R”) removed. It’s obvious to me that Pat filed the answer and counterclaim without benefit of legal counsel or even a competent layman’s understanding of applicable law, the U.S. Constitution, or civil procedure. It will be even more obvious to lawyers, including the judge. I’ll address a few points in the answer and counterclaim. Answer 1. Denies that the complaint is what it is. The bit about depriving constitutional rights of free speech is ludicrous. 2. Denies the Court’s jurisdiction, citing ignorance as a reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if you, as a U.S. District Court, have jurisdiction over this action, so I say you don’t.” The statements about the cybersquatting claim demonstrate ignorance of the meaning of “original jurisdiction.” 4. Denies that the venue is proper, citing ignorance as the reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if the Vermont District is the proper place to try this case, so I say that it is not.” Each of these demonstrates or outright proclaims ignorance or lack of understanding of applicable law, even though it is specifically cited in the corresponding points of the complaint. Beyond that, points 2 and 4 use ignorance as grounds to tell the Court that it does not have jurisdiction and that it is an improper venue. Not a good start. Affirmative Defenses 1. “TWI has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” That’s ludicrous! TWI stated several such claims. Whether or not they can prove them is a different matter. Counterclaim Points 1-15 are irrelevant, except that point 1 strongly suggests a longstanding knowledge of TWI’s marks and point 6, if true, could be applicable to THE WAY mark, but not THE WAY INTERNATIONAL mark. Count I is trivial. At best, it points out a few errors in the original claim. Count II is ludicrous. Points 25 and 26 are examples of TWI doing exactly as the law provides. Points 27-30 are irrelevant to the case. Count III is also ludicrous. Point 32 actually supports TWI’s position. Count IV Grounds for Cancellation of trademarks THE WAY and THE WAY INTERNATIONAL First of all, this is not an issue for the Court to decide in this case. If one believes that there are grounds to cancel registration of a mark or marks, then he should follow procedures established by law. That is, he should pay the prescribed fee and file a petition, stating the grounds relied on, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. “Ground” 1 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1064(5)(a), which applies to certification marks, not trademarks or service marks. “Ground” 2 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1120 and 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1), neither of which has to do with canceling registration of a mark. “Ground” 3 cites 15 U.S.C. § 1152(a) & (e), which have to do with registration, not cancellation of registration, of marks. Beyond that, points 44 and 45 are ludicrous, and 46-48 are irrelevant, even if true. Damages sought: Cites 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which is applicable only if TWI prevails.

If TWI's timeline is even close to correct, it's pretty obvious. Pat had not been using domain. In November, TWI discovered that he had begun using it to link to Excultworld, so they demanded that he stop and that he transfer the domain to them. He stopped, but in February, he put the domain up for sale, so they proceeded with the suit.

I posted a bit about the answer and counterclaim, but it's being held for moderation, due to one or more trigger words. Regarding this: "And yes, I hope to have many things to talk about in front of the jury, who will be comprised of everyday folk who will be judging TWI by the way their attorney acts and the actual issues." Those issues don't include TWI's beliefs, teachings, cemetary policy, unrelated court cases, etc. Most of what you hope to say to the jury, they will never hear.

It’s obvious that Pat filed the answer and counterclaim without benefit of legal counsel or even a competent layman’s understanding of applicable law, the U.S. Constitution, or civil procedure. I’ll address some of the points in the answer and counterclaim. Answer 1. Denies that the complaint is what it is. The “deprive Roberge of his constitutional rights of free speech” bit is ludicrous. 2. Denies the Court’s jurisdiction, citing ignorance as a reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if you, as a U.S. District Court, have jurisdiction over this action, so I say you don’t.” The statements about the cybersquatting claim demonstrate ignorance of the meaning of “original jurisdiction.” 4. Denies that the venue is proper, citing ignorance as the reason. This amounts to telling the Court, “I am too ignorant to know if Vermont is the proper place to try this case, so I say that it is not.” Affirmative Defenses 1. “TWI has failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.” That’s ludicrous! TWI stated several such claims. Whether or not they can prove them is a different matter. Counterclaim Count 1 is trivial. Counts 2 and 3 are ludicrous. Count IV Grounds for Cancellation of trademarks THE WAY and THE WAY INTERNATIONAL First of all, this is not an issue for the Court to decide in this case. If Roberge believes that there are grounds to cancel a mark or marks, he should follow procedures established by law, pay the prescribed fee, and file a petition with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. “Ground” 1: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1064(5)(a), which applies to certification marks, not trademarks or service marks. “Ground” 2: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1120 and 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(1), neither of which has to do with canceling registration of a mark. “Ground” 3: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1152(a) & (e), which have to do with registration, not cancellation of registration, of marks. Beyond that, points 44 and 45 are ludicrous, and 46-48 are irrelevant, even if true. Damages sought: Roberge cites 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), which is applicable only if TWI prevails.

The "Pro Se" on the signature line pretty well sums it up.

Got a reference for that, Pat? The misspelling of "legitemate" leads me to suspect that it's not an accurate quote.Oh, heck! I'll be more blunt. What you wrote is not a quote from any law.

diazbro, Whether or not any discussion in this thread constitutes "amateur lawyering" is not worth quibbling about. If you want to call it that, go for it. If “the suggestion that [my] reading of the law is sufficient to try the case here is a problem for [you],” then relax. Nobody suggests that.

Mark, your wish has already been granted. I don’t pretend to know more than I do. I also don’t pretend that other posters need or desire my approval.

Mark, I agree with everything Rafael just wrote concerning Pat wasting his time and actually obstructing his purported purpose. In addition, I think that Pat is both morally and legally wrong in registering and holding the subject domain. I also think that some of his factual representations are wrong and that some of his interpretations of law and statements about legal process (particularly discovery) are bizarre. Now I don’t care one bit about what Pat thinks or does, and won’t say a word about it, if he keeps it to himself. If he posts about it here, I’ll comment as I see fit. You asked, “Do any of you people, other than Pat, know anything about Trademark Law?” I’ll first point out that Pat doesn’t know as much about law as he represents. Then I’ll point out that several people have shown something that Pat apparently lacks, the ability to understand what they read. For examples, see Zixar and Raf’s posts near the bottom of page 8. There are plenty of others. Finally, I’ll state that relevant laws, rulings, court opinions, and facts are not particularly difficult to look up or comprehend. (At least they’re not difficult for me. According to your post at the bottom of page 7, you didn’t find TWI’s “THE WAY” trademark at uspto.gov. Maybe you missed the detailed instructions I posted on page 5 of this thread.) BTW, Mark, your first post on this page seems a bit disingenuous, given what you said in that post at the bottom of page 7.

Well, I wasn’t going to post to this thread again, but I changed my mind. Mark, there are no amateur lawyers on this thread. Not one of us is practicing law or giving legal advice. Rather, we are discussing matters that Pat, not us, opened up for public discussion. One need not be a lawyer or a law student to have informed, reasoned opinions about those matters.

First of all, I am not currently looking for anything regarding this topic. The referenced discussion was over a month ago and the participants have happily allowed this thread to lie dormant for almost a month. Secondly, before suggesting that I state my own views, perhaps you should extend the courtesy of reading the discussion that occurred. I stated my views, in quite a lot of detail, on several subjects related to the topic.Again, I don’t want to rehash what has already been discussed in this thread. If you wish to engage me in a discussion at this late date, then read the entire thread first. Otherwise, let's just let it die.

Shazdancer, That has come up, and is worth considering. Note the questions at the end of this post, quoted from a previous post. The law doesn't define marriage in religious terms. Civil marriage is not a religious institution.I really don't want to rehash what has already been discussed in this thread. Here's just a tiny sampling of quotes from three of my many posts. I was trying to provoke thought and reasoned discussion, things that are sorely lacking in public debate of most topics.

You obviously didn't keep up with this thread, shaz. If you had, you would have known that several people, including me, discussed in some detail the reasons we have civil marriage and the state's interest that justifies it. At least two of us requested, several times each, that proponents of gay marriage discuss whether, how, and to what extent gay marriage would further the same interest. Not one person has done so.You said, “I would think that just about every reason you could come up with for hetero marriage would apply to gay couples as well.” Perhaps so. I’ve repeatedly asked for proponents of gay marriage to present an intelligent argument to that effect, by specifying the reasons and showing how they apply to gay couples. Still no takers.

BackForty, I knew you in Irving. Check private topics.

Pat, This will be my last post to this thread. [Edit, one week later: It was to be my last post. I changed my mind.] I'm not trying to beat up on you. I've been trying to give you a little dose of reality. If you think I've been tough on you, you ain't seen nothin' yet. You have made trying to "get" TWI a major focus of your life for several years. By your own admission, you've squandered a lot of money and time on that, to little avail. I don't think you're up to the challenge, either financially or emotionally. I've advised seeking professional help of the legal variety. You might consider some of a different sort. I wish you well.

Perhaps you’re right. Even Don Quixote wouldn’t have made a public show of slaughtering his horse, stripping off his armor, and handing his lance and sword to his opponent.Pat has publicly proclaimed that he has no legitimate interest in the domain, by saying that he was going to sell it for a dollar. He has made it clear that the only reason he is holding on to it is because he’s mad at TWI. And now he has publicly announced, through his poll, that he would make a profit on it if he sold it for $1000.00. (That was his “don’t let them bully you” price, before his last edit.) He has publicly conceded the issues. There's nothing left to fight about.

You don't know that. TWI may have prevailed.

BTW, I'm not defending TWI. I think they're a sorry outfit, and I'm all for anyone with a legitimate grievance against them seeking justice. But I'm not going to cheer on someone who wants to don a rusty suit of armor, mount an old nag, and charge windmills.