Goey

I like to hang out with wackos sometinmes becasue it makes me feel more sane than I really am.

Grizz, I think the countersuit is a plausible defense and that it has quite a bit of merit actually. Tell me why it can't be used? Tell me why it will fail? And yes the District Court, can cancel a Trademark if it can be proven that the owner/agent withheld relevant information, was fraudulent, or failed to police a Trademark. We wont know that till it happens will we? While some of you guys are solely speculating a negative outcome and trying to find reasons why Pat is gonna lose this thing, I am trying to figure out and find ways that he can beat it. But I am not so naive as to think that it's gonna be a slam dunk. This is a very complicated case and I certainly don't think that I am smart enough to predict the outcome. Heck, it hasn't even gone to discovery yet for crying out loud - and some of y'all have Pat making license plates already.

Longone posted: A weak analogy IMO. It also leaves out how this all got started. Here how it got started. A religious group takes a commom phrase from the Bible like "The Word" and then incorportates itself as "The Word Inc." Later this group apllies for and gets a US Trademark for "The Word". But they fail to disclose to the U.S. patent office that "The Word" is already used in the name of hundreds of corporations, churches. etc. They also fail to disclose that "the Word" is a biblical term synonymous with Jesus and also with the Bible . It also amounts to a "religious belief". Millions of folks believe in "The Word" but of these millions only a scant few believe in "The Word" as a corporation out of Ohio. They also fail to police this trademark. Next as they recruit a few followers in other countries, they think of themselves as being global in nature and change their name to "The Word International" This organization becomes entrenched in scandal with charges of plagairism and sexual harrassment against it's leaders. Many of their followers leave thier ranks. They dwindle to 1/5 of their peak membership of less. While witholding details or thier scandals to thier own followers. I, being a former follower start a Website Called former-wordworld.com to expose this group, then becoming aware of other groups like this register and use former-cultworld.com. I also start a little Ministry and name it "The Word of Jesus Ministries" I Incorporate under that name. I also apply for a trademark. Then I get a letter one day from the attorneys of "The Word International" claiming that "The Word Of Jesus Ministries" is a trademark infringement against "The Word International's" trademark "The Word". They say that people will confuse "The Word of Jesus Ministries" with "The Word International". They demand I Stop using the Word of Jesus Ministries. However, they have never and do not now take any action againt hundreds of other ministries and churches (legally incorporated) all over the United States that have "The Word" in their name, Like: The Word of Life Ministries , The Word of Truth, Christ is the Word, Church of the Word, The Word Tabernacle, The Word of the Apostle, ad infinitum. For lack of financial resources to hire competant legal help, I abandon my Trademark application and change my name. This is kind of how it all got started.

Just found this ..... (The Associated Press) WASHINGTON -- Federal regulators have endorsed a plan to use vacant TV channels for high-speed Internet connections. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell says it would "dramatically increase" the availability and quality of wireless Internet connections -- especially for people in rural areas. Powell says it would be like "doubling the number of lanes on a congested highway." But TV broadcasters oppose the proposal. They argue that it would interfere with over-the-air television signals for millions of people. The FCC commissioners voted unanimously to begin the lengthy rulemaking process for the plan.

Pat, Look at Title 28 - Part IV - Ch 85 - Sec 1332 (B) Pat, you know there are legal forums where you can post questions/comments like this and probably get better answers than you can here. How wise is to have TWI and their attorneys see this kind of stuff? You know they are checking this thread daily, so I have to assume that you actually want them to see it. It beats me as to why.

Pat, I am not so sure that this applies in your case or to the Lanham Act in general. I think your case has to be in Federal Court because of the multiple claims including a claim against Vermont's unfair competetion laws. What Law are you quoting from ?

What about us country folks who's only alternatives are dialup( Arrgh!) and satelite (Very Expensive)? Will Wi-Fi be expanded to rural areas or be similar in coverage to celular phone service?

Anyone who pronounces "problem" as prob-LEN can't be trusted to pronunce Greek properly.

Maybe I am missing something here. What makes a site "commercial"? -- Is teaching the Bible considered "Commerce"? Is pointing people to online Bible resources considered commerce ? Is accepting a donation (one-way transaction) cosidered "commerce" ? I thought that commerce meant the exchange of goods or services (something of value) between two parties. Longone, where is the exchange of goods and services on the links you posted? Is GS cafe "Commercial". Does the sale of a few T -Shirts make it "commercial" even though vast majority of it is editorial comment, information or discussion?

Grizz, [That suit that Goey found, am I missing something here? The right to free speech and having a gripe site was upheld because the owner of the gripe site didn’t cross any lines where it could be proven he profited from it. Interesting that he could offer the domain up for an auction, a sure plus for the case being discussed here. I suppose it boils down to if the site is considered by the court to be a "gripe site" or a commercial site. I think Longone's position is that Pat's Site was commercial - where I see it as being primarily a gripe site and non-commercial.

Me? Disagree with Longone? God forbid. But yes I am actually. Part of ruling may be irrevelant to Pat's case, but I do not think it is compleletly irrelevant. The cases are similar enough that I believe that parts of this ruling may indeed apply. I will not go into details here. The Landham Act is just now really being tested in the courts. The Internet is new territory in regards to trademark law and as more and more cases are going to appeal, these rulings become more and more important to folks like Pat - And ones like this should not be dismissed as irrelevant to Pat's case without extreme scrutiny. This is not the only one - there are quite a few others that have not been posted for obvious reasons. ---- Rant deleted ---

Dupe

Posted by Longone: TWI's claim (48): "This claim arises under the provisions of The Trademark Act of 1946, 15 USC 1051 et seq., particualarly under 15 USC 1125(d)" 5th Court of Appeals: " ...violated the anti-dilution provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125©; the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (“ACPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); and the Texas Anti-Dilution Statute, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 16.29. Concluding that Maxwell’s site, as a non-commercial gripe site, violates none of these statutes, we reverse and render judgment in favor of Maxwell. Longone: "After looking again at TWI’s complaint, I think the decision Goey cited is irrelevant to Pat’s case. The only law common to both is ACPA (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d), concerning cybersquatting." Duh! -- TWI's case IS particularly concerning Cybersquating.

True, but there are other (recent) precedents by that address these issues as well. I would argue that solicitation of donations is not commmercial use, since no goods or services are offered in exchange for the donation. Also, in looking at TWI's Web Site ( past and present), nowhere is there any verbage that can be construed as the solicitation of donations, or that they are actually offering for sale (commerce) any goods and services. For all anyone can tell by looking at TWI's Web Site, they give it away. They don't appear to be using their Website for commercial trade at all. There are no products offered for sale, no prices, no order forms, no email. Only a P.O. Box for "inquiries". Also, Pat's Computer services are not in the same class at TWI's goods and services, so there couldn't be any trademark infringment.

I wouldn't, but does the law preclude or preven this? In a very recent decision by the 5th circuit court of appeals the answer is no. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a dictrict court ruling and ruled that registering and using a domain name that uses another's trademark or even their exact company name in that name - was not a trademark infringment nor was it actionable under the Landham Act -- UNLESS the domain (Site) is used for commerical trade that interfered with the commercial trade of of that company. Here is the ruling..... For you lawyers and fellow legal buffs. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/...0320243cv0p.pdf

I don't think you (or the rest of us) were stupid at all. Stupidity had little or nothing to do with it. Folks trusted TWI because TWI covertly canived, lied, manipulated etc, in the name of God, to earn that trust -- to the end that they could take advantage of folks and profit themselves. IMO, Slick Vic, LCM, TWI, et al, ran a pretty good con... Even smart people can get conned when they are deceived into trusting the con artist.

"Most" is the keyword. Statutes of limitations very from state to state. 1 - 25 years depending upon the crime. And in the case of Ohio for example, the clock does not start ticking until the alleged act is discovered. In Ohio, The Civil Statute of Limitations for fraud is 4 years - Slander and libel is one year.

I kindly disagree. Some pending litigation taken on by this firm, that I have deeply researched, indicates that they may not be the crack attorney's that some make them out to be.They settled out of court for big bucks on the two largest suits againt TWI, and things don't look too good for TWI in the Pee1er Case. Their grandest accomplishment to date seems to be facillitating a $200 fine and conviction on someone for trespassing. The fact that this firm represents TWI, already stains their reputation. Money that folks give to God (through TWI) for the pupose of "moving the Word" is being siphoned off into the pockets of these overpriced lawyers -- and they are more than glad to take it. Even dispicable outfits like TWI are entitled to legal counsel and representation and there are law firms (like this one) more than willing to take their money. Innies, Your ABS hard at work.

Tommy, I think you may have nailed it. The onboard sound may not be up to the task at hand. What chipset is it? Question: If you resize the DVD player display to a smaller size, does the sound come into sync? What is the speed of your processor? Also, you could open the Performance Monitor while a DVD is playing and see what the processor is doing. If is averaging over 80-85 percent or so your processor overhead is gettin pretty high. This could be caused by other running applications/processes, or by a inadequate hardware, like a base level audio card or by a controllerless WinModem (If you are connected by dialup to the Internet). The latest version of Windows Media Player is Version 9

Well Pat, TWI's trademark is NOT invalid. It will only be invalid when the Court or the USPTO delcares it invalid. As of 1981/82 both of TWI's "The Way" trade/servicemarks are quite valid. You have to prove to the Court that they were obtained improperly/fraudulently - or they they have become generic. Then the Court will rule as to whether they should be canceled or not. As far as the Court sees it they are quite valid until it is proven oherwise. You cannot simply delcare them invalid. I hope you get very familiar with Title 15 Chapter 22 Of the US Code -- especially with Subchapter I Sec. 1064 which deals with Cancellation of Registration. You will also need to understand the RULES OF PRACTICE IN TRADEMARK CASES For what it's worth Pat, I see quite a few holes in TWI's case against you, however in reading your countersuit, I do not see where you have addressed some of them adequately or even at all. And Pat, for goodness sake, instead of running off about your tactics and strategies here in this public forum, why not ask for some help/advise via private topics or private email. You may be surprised at the repsonse. You may get some sympathy and encouragement here in this open forum, but that is not going to help you with this case. You need legal help and honest objective opions, and you need to be humble enough and objective enough to at least consider them.

Pat, I agree with you, that TWI's tradmark on "The Way" should be canceled. That it will "not be difficult" is yet to be seen and a rather niave attitude IMO. I would not count my eggs before they hatch, especially since you do not have experienced legal counsel representing you, which is my opinion is a grave mistake. And, if it will be so easy then why did you abandon your TM application for "The Way of Christ" and let TWI win that one by default? I do hope you stick to it this time though, and that you also secure and keep some competant legal counsel this time in order to shore up your case. However, getting TWI's "The Way" trademark canceled will not make their claim against you for cybersquatting or registering thewayintnational.com in bad faith go away. They are separate issues. I hope you can at least see that.

The Way Christian Ministries is a group out of Stottland. - www.thewaycm.com. Their site is up and running and they still use "The Way" in their name.

Corrected

CC, TWI does have a trademark. They have 2 registered trademarks on "The Way" (not The Way International). TWI is claiming trademark infringment againt the "The Way" which is registered and also against "The Way International", which is not yet registered. My guess is that TWI will indeed file suit against this Illinois based ministry, since this is same the party that has filed the official opposition with the USPTO against TWI's application to register "The Way International" as a trademark. According to the USPTO TWI has filed against others, claiming exclusive use of "The Way". My opinion on all this is that PR did indeed register "thewayinternationl.com" in bad faith and has no right to it regardless of trademark claims. But I also think that TWI should not have the exclusive right to use "The Way". In the case that Longone referenced there is an interesting comment by the WIBPO Panelist: I think that sometime n the future TWI could lose it's trademark for "The Way". That is of course assuming the right Plantiff, and that they have experienced and competent legal representation. I hope this helps.

Warning- this stuff dry reading.... According to the USPTO, 4 official oppositions and 4 extensions to file an opposition have been filed against TWI's applications to register "The Way International" as a trademark. The 30-Day extensions were filed by Pat Roberge on 4/27/2004. Pat has until 5/29/2004 to file official oppositions. The offical oppositions Pat mentions were filed by "The Way International Ministries Inc." a Christian group out of Illinois. Here is is: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=911...9&pty=OPP&eno=1 All this stuff is a matter of public record and can be researched and seen at the USPTO Web Site - including opposition filings and official decisions. http://www.uspto.gov/ Also ...... TWI has two registerd tradmarks on "The Way". (Not "The Way International" which are pending). These two actually became registered in 1981 and 1982. Reg #1155904 and Reg # 1236084 On 1/9/2002 TWI filed an Opposition to Pat Roberge's application to register "The Way of Christ Minstry" as a trademark. TWI claimed infringment upon their registered trademark (1236084)"The Way" - not "The Way International." Among other things they claimed that "The Way Of Christ Ministry" would be confused with "The Way". On 8/12/2002 Pat Roberge withdrew his application to register "The Way of Christ Ministry", stating that "...I believe the facts would more than prove my position ... Regetibly however, for the average citizen, justice as in this case comes to those who can afford the lawyers and expenses which award the prize to those who can buy it, not on the merits. Therefore I have withdrawn application without prejudice ..." On 8/21/2002, based upon Pat Roberge's withdrawal of application and not on the merits of TWI opposition, the USPTO "sustained" TWI's opposition.