LG

Cherished Child, ”Long Gone, do you believe that TWI had every right to sue Pat for using the name, ‘The Way of Christ Ministries’?” TWI has every legal right to protect itself and its name that any other organization or person has. They demanded that Pat stop using the name, “The Way of Christ Ministry”. He did. Had he not, they probably would have sued, which would have been their right. They had no reason to sue, once Pat stopped using the disputed name. Pat could have gone on with what he was doing, under a different name, with no problems. Instead, he chose to press the matter, by applying to register “The Way of Christ Ministry” as his trademark. TWI (or anyone else) had the right to oppose that, which they did. Pat reportedly spent about two thousand dollars before abandoning the application. He didn’t have to pick that fight, but he did, without weighing the cost. ”What makes them right in asserting that the use of the words, ‘The Way’ was an infringment on their copyright?” They didn’t assert anything about copyright infringement. They claimed that Pat’s use of “The Way” in “The Way of Christ Ministry” was an infringement of TWI’s “rights in its service mark THE WAY®.” I think it was, for reasons I’ve already expressed. But whether it was or not, TWI had the right to make that claim, and to defend it in any appropriate venue. ”You've still not addressed the fact that there are many other Christian organizations who are using the words, ‘the way’ within their titles.” Rafael addressed that adequately. It’s irrelevant. Even if it weren’t, TWI has defended its claimed trademark rights against other perceived infringements by other Christian organizations. They did so at least once in the past year, in a dispute over the domain name, “thewayministry.org”. Although TWI’s complaint was dismissed, the arbiter said, “the Complainant was justified in making the Complaint.” The reason TWI did not prevail was that the other party was not aware of them prior to registering the domain. ”Why insist that Pat, and Pat only, cease and desist in this instance?” I’ve not insisted that Pat do anything. I just hate to see people get so carried away with their feelings about TWI that their good judgment and even their personal values suffer. I’d also hate for this to influence others to do stupid things. People who play Don Quixote in real life suffer real-life consequences. ”Why do you insist that TWI stands on moral high ground?” I’ve not insisted, nor even suggested, that TWI stands on moral high ground. I think that Pat is morally wrong in this matter, but that says nothing about TWI’s morals. Sorry as their morals may be, they are irrelevant to this matter. *** This whole thing really boils down to this. Pat tried, in at least two ways, to use TWI’s name and trademark to harm them. Whether or not what he did in the first instance was in technical accordance with the law is arguable but it was contrary to the intent of the law. I think his attempt to register “The Way of Christ Ministry” as his trademark was technically contrary to the law also, because one requirement for registration is bona fide (good faith) use of a trademark. Pat’s registration of the domain, “thewayinternational.com”, was about as clear-cut a violation as is possible. That domain name is clearly “identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant [TWI] has rights.” Pat has “no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.” And the “domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” Regarding the domain name, those three points are all TWI has to prove. If TWI is also seeking an injunction against Pat’s future use of “the way” in a name used for religious purposes, the burden will be greater.

Ummm, Pat....You might want to CLICK HERE.

Pat, I don’t know why this sticks in my craw. A bit of OCD, perhaps. I’m all for nailing TWI where they’re wrong, but I’m also for justice, doing the right thing, and being sensible, even regarding despicable people and organizations, like TWI. Again I’ll point out that, if this should proceed to trial, it will be before impartial people, who will not be prejudiced by the attitudes about TWI that are prevalent here. You’ll have a hard time convincing an impartial person that TWI is harassing you, in order to silence you. Neither the facts, nor the common-sense judgments of impartial people, support those conclusions. First of all, consider whether silencing you could be TWI’s motive. There is not one thing that you do in publishing information about TWI that depends in any way on using “The Way” in a name or on the “thewayinternational.com” domain. You are not currently using either. You are simply holding on to the domain, even though you have no legitimate use for it. TWI does have a legitimate use for it. They want it, and that’s the whole reason they are suing you to get it. Their having it will not stop you from doing anything you are already doing or prevent you from doing anything you want to do. In other words, TWI’s motive in wanting the domain name has nothing to do with silencing you. Now consider this timeline, from the perspective of a reasonable, impartial person, with no prejudice against TWI. “The Way” has been a registered trademark of TWI for many years. “The Way International” has been their trademark for over twenty years, although it has not been registered for most of that time. TWI registered “theway.org” in 1998. They registered “theway.com” in February of 1999. They didn’t have a website at that time, but likely planned to have one in the future. Some time after that, you started up “The Way of Christ Ministry” website. You registered the domain you originally used for that site, “thewayofchrist.com”, in June of 1999. There is no obvious reason that TWI would have been aware of your website at that time. You registered “thewayinternational.com” in September of 1999. There is no obvious reason that TWI would have been aware of that. You posted on Waydale, and your site was linked from Waydale, so TWI was likely to eventually become aware of your site. They obviously did, because they sent you a letter about your use of the name “The Way of Christ Ministry” in June of 2000. You changed the name of your site to “The Path of Christ Ministry.” You also registered a new domain name, “waychrist.com” in August of 2000, and began using that domain for your “The Path of Christ Ministry” website. That satisfied TWI’s demands at the time. You held on to both “thewayofchrist.com” and “thewayinternational.com” domains, but TWI may not have known that. In September of 2000, you filed to register “The Way of Christ Ministry” as your trademark. It was published for opposition in September of 2001. TWI opposed, and it was abandoned in August of 2002. As of that time, there still was no obvious reason that TWI would have been aware of your registration of “thewayinternational.com” domain. In June of 2003, TWI registered the domains “thewayinternational.org”, “thewayinternational.net”, and “thewayinternational.info”. It would have been reasonable for them to attempt to register “thewayinternational.com” at that time, also, but it was already registered to you. That may have been the first they knew about that. It would take some time for that information to get back to a TWI decision-maker, and for a decision to be made to refer the matter to their attorney. It would take more time for the attorney to look into the matter and recommend a course of action. According to you, they sent you a letter in December of 2003. They gave you about three months, and then filed suit. Barring evidence to the contrary, their actions appear to be reasonable, timely, and unrelated to your “ex-cultworld” site or anything you’ve published there. So, Pat, neither possible motive nor the sequence of events would lead a reasonable, impartial person to the conclusion that TWI is harassing you, in order to silence you. If a reasonable, impartial person were to see a pattern of harassment, I think it would be one of you harassing TWI. You have no cause for legal action against them. If you ever had such cause, the time limit for acting on it has long since expired. Yet your words in your opening post to this thread, and elsewhere, indicate that you have wanted to sue them, and are glad that they are suing you. A reasonable person might conclude that you have been trying to provoke them, in order to attempt to use a lawsuit filed by them as a vehicle for acquiring and publishing harmful or embarrassing information about them. This is a fight of your own making. You are holding on to something for which you have no legitimate use, but TWI does. It will cost you nothing to relinquish your claim. Rather, it will save you time, trouble, expense, distraction from other efforts, etc. On the other hand, if you make TWI a reasonable offer, you might even make a little money. If you were to add up your expenses related to the domain, throw in a small amount for your trouble, and take that to an attorney who could deal with TWI on your behalf, I’ll bet you could reach a just settlement in a matter of days. That’s reasonable. Making a big issue over something that could be settled with a couple of telephone calls between lawyers is not. Thinking you’re going to use this to acquire damaging information about TWI, through discovery, or thinking you’re going to waltz into a courtroom and put TWI and their lawyers to shame is beyond unreasonable. Get a lawyer. Have the lawyer arrange a reasonable settlement. Go on with life.

Pat, I was going to make my previous post my last one to this topic, but now I want to clarify something. I have nothing but contempt for TWI. I simply think that you’re in the wrong here. The reasons Rafael gave are the most important ones, and I agree with him entirely. I also think you’re wrong on the law concerning this matter, but you have every right to defend your position vigorously, and I support your right to do that. I just think it’s a waste. Several years ago, a storm blew down a tree on a rent property I own, and it landed on a neighbor’s roof. Legally, it was an “Act of God” and I was not responsible for damages, but I offered to re-shingle the slope of the roof where the tree landed, even though the damage really only amounted to about five broken shingles and a few scuffed-up ones. Before that could be arranged, I ran into him at the local hardware store, where I was picking up materials for an emergency plumbing repair at an apartment building I own. I was wet, dirty, in a bad mood, and in a hurry. Apparently I said something that offended him, although I’m not sure what. A few days later, he notified me that he was suing me for an entire new roof. He did, I won, and he got nothing. My legal costs were more than the cost of the repairs that I offered to do, but less than the cost of a new roof. His legal costs were about the same. Together, we spent almost enough for a new roof, but neither of us received any benefit from it. I went on with life. He’s still mad. And his roof is still in the same condition as the day the tree was removed, with a few replacement shingles that don’t match covering the damage. I know that’s not exactly analogous to your situation, but I think there are some similarities. He allowed his anger for a perceived slight to interfere with his good judgment and his sense of integrity. He wanted to make me pay, not for the damages, but for offending him. He did cost me some money, but no lasting harm. The lasting harm was to him, primarily in the form of continued anger because he didn’t “get” me. I think that’s what will end up happening in this matter. You’ll cost TWI some money, but will probably not even recover your costs. They’ll go on, with little thought of the matter, but you will continue to be angry, possibly even more than you are now. In other words, the biggest loser, in ways that matter, will be you. I may not come across all lovey-dovey, but I do wish you well. I hope you’ll consider these things and seek a reasonable resolution, along the lines of what Rafael suggested.

Pat, It’s no puzzle at all to me. This piddling little squabble is fueled by vanity. Enjoy.

Pat, My comments in this thread specifically relate to this thread, in which you have represented to people that you will be able to ask TWI virtually anything you want and that they will have to answer your questions under oath. That is simply not true. If you ask them questions about matters not relevant to the subject matter of the suit, they will object to the questions, based on rule 26 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Practice.

Pat, You’ve already indicated that you don’t fully understand the complaint. First, you said it was about the domain name. Later, you said, “TWI's claim of copyright infringement” is “mainly for” your previous use of the name, “The Way of Christ Ministry.” Then you said, “The main issue is their allegation of trademark infringement for using "The Way" in any religious context or otherwise because TWI owns this phrase.” After that, in the “Lawsuit contest” thread, you went back to copyright infringement. Now, you indicate that you don’t understand the letter you cited. The issue in that letter is not, as you wrote above, “using ‘The Way’ in any religious context or otherwise because TWI owns this phrase.” TWI makes no claim of ownership or special rights to the phrase, except as a trademark. They do not demand that you not use the phrase. Their demand concerns your use, for goods and services related to religion, of a name using the words “The Way”. From the letter you cited: “Therefore, on behalf of our client, we demand that you immediately and permanently cease all use of the name "The Way of Christ Ministry" and any other name using the words "The Way" for any goods and services related to religion, including changing the name of your corporation.” (Emphasis mine) The fact that the complaint cites a previous dispute does not make that the “main issue” in this one. It may be cited to show intent or a pattern, which I think it does. Perhaps more importantly, it would appear to be a matter already decided, possibly conceded by you, that weighs in TWI’s favor. You should realize that whatever the issues are in this case, they will be decided by impartial people, whose opinions will be based on facts and the law, rather than the anger of ex-cult followers. At issue are not all uses of “The Way” or “The Way International”, but your use of those words, not in all contexts, but in particular ways that TWI claims infringe on its trademark rights. I think they’re right, in both cited instances. The domain name one is pretty straightforward. I’ll elaborate a bit on your previous use of “The Way of Christ Ministry.” You didn’t choose the name “The Way of Christ Ministry” independently of The Way International, which is also known as “The Way Ministry.” You inserted “of Christ” into the name TWI was popularly called by many of its followers. Moreover, you underlined the words “of Christ” in “The Way of Christ Ministry.” Deny it all you wish, but that name, as you presented it on your web pages, was intended to convey a message about “The Way Ministry”, by contrasting it with Christ’s way. The subtitle and the contents of the web pages make the association, and your intent, obvious. You were using a variation of TWI’s name, including a registered trademark, in a manner that arguably (I think clearly) infringed on their rights. An attorney reviewing a trademark application for “The Way of Christ Ministry” would not likely see the connection, and apparently did not. Such a possibility is one reason that applied-for trademarks are published for opposition, before being registered. TWI opposed, and their opposition was sustained by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Even if that was a default judgment, it would be something that TWI would be reasonably expected to cite. Do what you want, guy, but I think facts, the law, and basic morals (as judged by an impartial person of integrity) weigh against you. I think you’d do well to release your claim to “thewayinternational.com” domain, in exchange for reimbursement of your actual expenses related to that domain.

Oh, bull! There's no way it's about "using 'The Way' in any religious context or otherwise." There are hundreds of registered trademarks that include the words, “The Way.” At least eight of them are trademarks of organizations, other than TWI, with religious purposes. “The Way International” appears in no registered or filed trademarks, except those of TWI.Regarding TWI trademarks, you might want to do a little more research. “The Way” is one trademark of TWI, but not the only one. TWI has used “The Way International” as a trademark for over twenty years. For most of that time, it was not registered but it clearly was a trademark, something that a reasonably observant and competent person associated with TWI would know. Moreover, the words, “The Way International” were part of a registered TWI trademark (serial #2151377) when you acquired the “www.thewayinternational.com” domain. TWI filed the design and words of THIS LOGO as a trademark in 1996. The registration process was completed in 1998. To see a list of TWI’s trademarks, go to www.uspto.gov. On the left side of the page, under Trademarks, click Search. Choose New User Form Search (Basic). For Search Term, type “way international” “new knoxville”. (Use the quotes and don’t type “the way international”.) For Field, choose Owner Name and Address from the drop-down menu. For Result Must Contain, choose All Search Terms (AND). Then click Submit Query. You should get 30 results, some of which are no longer current.

It's you who doesn't understand, but have at it if you like. "Let your imagination go wild."

Pat, It might be a good idea to know what the heck you're being sued for, before you go spouting off about how you're going to win the suit and expose "damaging or embarrassing" facts about TWI in the process. An even better idea would be to consult someone (a lawyer) who can give you some decent advice. Even better would be to heed Rafael's advice.

More wild fantasy and self aggrandizement. It's a piddling little suit over a domain name. You can fantasize all you want about turning up some "damaging or embarrassing fact" but discovery will be limited to questions relevant to the subject matter of the suit.

Grizzy, I'm shocked at your ignorance! It's the MOU (Monkeys over the Universe) auditorium.

We posted at the same time, Zixar. There's nothing in this thread that TWI doesn't already know and have documented.

Zixar, according to Pat, in more than one post on Waydale, TWI did defend its trademark, by threatening to sue him if he did not cease and desist using the domain name, which he did. So long as he did not use it or try to sell it, TWI had no grounds to challenge his ownership of the domain. That changed in February, when he offered the domain for sale at an exorbitant price and that offer was announced here, by IMF777. TWI's response to that was timely. If TWI can document those events (you know they can) I think they will win.

Pat, I don't care one way or another, but the law and the facts are on TWI's side in this matter, IMO.

TWI's going to win this, without spending much.

Trefor, not only is what you did a ploy, what you wrote is not true, particularly "Long Gone rehashed the argument regarding gays can 'enjoy' heterosexual marriage." Both def59 and I commented on the subject matter of the articles Mark posted. Johnny concurred with def59. If you want something new on this topic, then you might consider offering your thoughts on the state's interest in domestic unions, the purpose of civil marriage, and whether or not civil marriage, as traditionally defined, furthers a legitimate state interest. If you conclude that traditional civil marriage does further a legitimate interest of the state, then you could offer your thoughts about whether or how same-sex civil marriage might further the same interest. You've been asked for your thoughts on these things at least three times, by at least two people.

Relax, Trefor. Mark posted something new and some people commented. No big deal.

They're not barred from marriage, either.The notion that the push for same-sex marriage is in any way similar to the movement for civil rights for blacks (or women) is ludicrous and offensive. (Offensive to the people who fought for civil rights and to the people who are in favor of civil rights for all, but are being called bigots because they don't honor homosexuals' actions or desires.) Both blacks and women were barred from constitutional rights because of who they were, not what they did. Homosexuals are barred from no civil rights, of any kind, based on who they are. It's simply that some of their choices are not honored by society, as some other choices are. This is not a matter of civil rights at all. It's a matter of a group demanding that society declare their personal choice (domestic arrangements with someone of the same sex) to be a preferred choice, and to grant benefits on that basis.

Whoa, karmic! You're making a completely unjustified leap. def59's posts are not indicative of past abuse. They are indicative of belief that homosexuality is immoral, even depraved, which is a perfectly legitimate belief if one believes the Bible. I say that as one who doesn't believe it, but knows what it says. Agree with him or not, def59 has documented his statements. Also, whether or not you agree, men who lust after boys, but not girls, are homosexual pedophiles, just as men who lust after girls, but not boys, are heterosexual pedophiles. The categories are not identical, but they do overlap. If you disagree with def59, put forth an argument. Keep your idiotic personal "evaluations" to yourself.

Rocky, I know the definition of semantics. I didn't say that semantics was not an issue. I said, "It's not just semantics." There is a fundamental difference in the two types of unions, no matter what you may wish to call them. That difference will continue to exist, even if the laws are changed so as to no longer recognize the difference. That is not "a simple matter of semantics" any more than the difference between a glass of water and a glass of beer is "a simple matter of semantics."

dmiller, Many of us don't share your religious beliefs concerning the authority of the Bible or your understanding of it.

Rocky, it's not just semantics, although that is very important when it comes to the law. For all their similarities, there is at least one fundamental difference between heterosexual unions and homosexual unions. They simply are not the same things. A typical heterosexual union will produce children; a homosexual union cannot. The prospect of a union producing children is the basis for our marriage laws. It is an essential element of civil marriage, as defined by those laws. Redefining civil marriage to include same-sex couples would remove that essential element, which would remove the basis for consanguinity restrictions, among other things. Defining a different sort of civil union, without regard to gender, would not affect the basis for current marriage laws. Such a union (or unions, if more than one type were defined) could include some or almost all benefits, privileges, and responsibilities currently included in civil marriage, and possibly some that would not reasonably be included in civil marriage. (I can't think of any, but I'll allow for the possibility.)

Catcup, you sure jumped to some wild, completely unfounded speculation. I'm one of the strongest proponents you could imagine of equal rights and equal protection of the laws for all persons, and that means ALL. I support redressing the legitimate grievances that homosexuals and some others share. Civil marriage could do the trick, but that's not the purpose of civil marriage, as it has been defined by law and practice in our society. Civil unions could also do the trick, as could other possibilities. Concerning this: You changed to "civil union involving the same sex." Both Trefor's point and your response specifically said "marriage." There is a difference. That's all I was noting.You seemingly fail to see a difference between people who favor providing equal protection of the laws without redefining marriage and "all the other neanderthals and tyrants of history who felt it was appropriate to deny other human beings their dignity and human rights, enslave them, and even deny them the right to exist." You even go on about Martindale, whose hateful spiel I guess you assume permeates the thinking of people like Zixar or me. Well, I don't know about Zixar, but I never heard any of Martindale's rants and wouldn't have tolerated them if I had. I had already withdrawn from TWI before Wierwille died, though I still had some contact. I went to the ROA right after he died, mostly because my wife wanted to pay her respects. That was the first time and last time I ever heard Martindale speak publicly. About all I remember about that was that I thought he was a bozo.

Catcup, I'm sure you recognize that the African woman-woman marriages you cited were not analogous to marriages in our culture, where women have the same property (and other) rights as men.