1) I have a couple of attorneys already. I am not stupid. I will represent myself and do the paperwork as long as I can competently do so to save costs. (I had a trademark attorney respond to the letter posted previously, remember?)
2) TWI threatened me to give them the domain or else. They are the aggressor
3) I put the domain name up for sale with an e-mail address for the sale so that TWI could discretely purchase the domain through an innie and save face
4) TWI made no offer at all. Just threats
5) TWI has implicated my web design business and Ex-Cultworld in this lawsuit. That is why I will not give into them.
6) I know they are copying everything. Again I am not stupid. I want them to know I will not go easy and let them reflect on how costly their harrassment will be to them.
This company cannot be sued because the IC # is 42 which is the class of goods and services that company offers, and TWI's trademark is in class 41 for their goods and services of a religious nature.
My use of the domain name TheWayInternational.com was being used in class 38 goods and services, namely news reporting organizations.
I thought it was a Word in Biz weekend, but maybe not.
They were not going after spin-offs and ex-Way people only. He had a list of totally unrelated organizations that used "The Way", or "Power for...." something. One example was a magazine put out by the American TaeKwonDo Association called "The Way Magazine". (The word "Do" in Korean means "the way".)I {blushing in shame} was the one who alerted them to that particualr one, so my ears perked up when I heard Allen talking about it.
After a letter from TWI's lawyers they changed the name of the mag to The Way of TaeKwonDo
Long Gone, do you believe that TWI had every right to sue Pat for using the name, "The Way of Christ Ministries"? What makes them right in asserting that the use of the words, "The Way" was an infringment on their copyright? You've still not addressed the fact that there are many other Christian organizations who are using the words, "the way" within their titles. Why insist that Pat, and Pat only, cease and desist in this instance? Why do you insist that TWI stands on moral high ground? If the town of "Moral High Ground" were located on their rear end, they couldn't find it with a compass, a map, and a flashlight.
Long gone: I appreciate your link to the trademark office. I have spent dozens of hours there previous to this lawsuit.
The quick reference page does not list this category. You would have to do a more thorough job of research by reading the actual statutes.
Hint: it is a class of goods and services for electronic/internet news organizations unlike the ones you referenced which I believe are for for print media. Check for yourself as I was not interested in these classes and don't have all the particulars. Long Gone, the last discussion was nice and civil thanks.
I appreciate these types of discussions as I formulate my defence. When TWI actually serves me with the lawsuit summons instead of some other person with the same name across the state, I will be able to answer properly.
Gee, TWI's attorneys couldn't even get my address right.
Well, I am only listed in the phone book, have a valid drivers license, am listed with th VT Secretary of State, all with the correct address. How long would it have taken you to find my address? I am sure you woudn't have taken long.
Part of my December response to TWI's attorneys
Your claim of unfair competition is also without merit, because the services provided by the website you claim infringed on your client's mark were not "Educational Services-Namely, Providing Religious Teaching Services by Means of Motion Pictures and Slide Presentations and Producing and Presenting Musical, Dramaticomusical, and Dramatic Productions and Presenting Works of Art, Publishing of Periodicals and Booklets of a Religious Nature" as stated in The Way's trademark description.
Your client's mark was granted under class 41, and only protects the trademark from infringement by similar organizations, and in the same class.
The alleged infringement by Excultworld Magazine, Inc. which has been incorporated for years as a web magazine, a member of the New England Press Association, and not a religious publication, would be listed under a class 38 and or class 42 classification of goods and services as other organizations of similar purpose are.
Your claim of of dilution requires that the alleged infringer do so within the same class of goods and services. Since this is not the case, again your legal argument is without merit. Further, even if the alleged infringer was in the same class of goods and services, your argument falls short because there are tens of thousands of religious organizations that use "The Way" in the name of their organization or website, all of which would be infringers by your definition. It could be argued unsuccessfully that a drop of water into a lake would dilute it, which is the situation with your client's trademark.
TWI's attorneys never came back with a rebuttal to my legal arguments. They just sued. They were not interested in a peaceful resolution, just being a bully.
"3) I put the domain name up for sale with an e-mail address for the sale so that TWI could discretely purchase the domain through an innie and save face"
I'm confused. I thought you said a few pages back that selling the domain name was a joke. Or was just the $15,000 price tag a joke?
How about "The Way" Bible? Who owns the rights to that and that name? I know out witnessing people always think we are a certain religion with our own Bible by the same name.
Pat, I hope it goes well for you and that you kick their a**. I Don't know how well this thread will go over in court, but I sure hope the best for you.
”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.
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.
I did a search on "The Way". I looked at a number of pages. I never found "The Way. I did find "The Way of Christ" which Pat should have been able to register as a trademark. Pat was not able to complete his trademark registration solely because TWI had enough money to keep opposing Pat's trademark. This was not based on right or wrong or a genuine conflict in the trade mark law. Had Pat had enough money for this he would have gotten his trademark.
Pat was not able to complete his trademark registration solely because TWI had enough money to keep opposing Pat's trademark. This was not based on right or wrong or a genuine conflict in the trade mark law. Had Pat had enough money for this he would have gotten his trademark.
Your posting was correct. Ever the negative poster on this issue, Long Gone will never admit that I have anything right in this matter.
My application contrary to somone who has no idea about the circumstances, was proper and was supervised by a very experienced intellectual property attorney who has practiced before the US Supreme court winning several cases.
As you stated accuratly, my application was found to not conflict with TWI's trademark, and if TWI didn't oppose it, would have been my trademark.
In actuality, my proposed trademark would have been a much stronger one than TWI's generic and highly diluted "The Way" which would never had been approved today, especially if the true nature of the phrase was revealed in the application.
Unfortunatly, TWI was willing to spend more money to mess with me than I had to fight them with, and wanted to disrupt my schooling during the summer semester where the classes are over in 1/2 the time, very intense and suicidal to miss even one class.
They wanted to depose me for days over the trademark issue. Their real motive was not the trademark in my opinion, but a backwards way of looking at all my records which was part of their document request.
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.
>>
LG I don't know you at all so I'm just representing an opinion here. I don't think of this domain legal situation as being Quixotic. Seems to me that there are ongoing efforts to "try" this case here at Gspot when its really Pat's time and energy and ultimately
his choice to go forward. I don't see this as being foolishly impractical at all.
From my point of view TWI wants to cybersquat
by getting all related domains so no one else
can - thus enabling them to minimize the possibility that so called "internet defamation" could occur. One could argue
that they have no intention of using these
domains for any other reason than to keep
them from someone else who might in fact have
a legitimate use for it. And who is right ? I don't know but thats what the courts are for.
Furtermore I think there is value in getting TWI into court because what they do and say becomes public record , for the most part, and its yet another data point on how they function.
If I had the time I might consider moving
forward with some legal action against TWI for no other reason than to get them into court so they would have to answer questions and get it out there in the public record. It might be a drop in the bucket but it would be helpful.
But I probably wouldn't post about it publicly prior to and as I'm doing it though for better or worse thats the choice of another.
Your observations are very perceptive and a welcome change from the people who want to make out to be the bad guy.
When I used the domain name to legitematly point people to sources of info about TWI, they went for the lawsuit.
I have a legitemate use for the domain name, and TWI doesn't like the use. It's that simple, and the use is not one that infringes on their trademark either.
They know it, and I know it. The lawsuit is strictly harrassment....
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.
>>
LG I don't know you at all so I'm just representing an opinion here. I don't think of this domain legal situation as being Quixotic.
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.
If I was a lawyer, I would tell you to bring this topic up on as many threads as possible, discuss your tactics and legal strategies, and explain your version of the history of this conflict as publicly as possible. If I was a lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do.
Oh, clarification: If I was TWI's lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do.
[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.
Just trying to give my 2cents, after all you started this thread.
I don't see to many lawyers telling their clients to post their strategy on the internet, barn, billboard, etc. I don't think its a good idea, but heck what do I know.
keep right on keeping on, no skin off my nose. Only I would not like to see you lose. Losing is always a posibility, just ask Martha.
I really think you are very bright. I think you bring up some good points. However, Pat would have prevailed on "the Way of Christ". It was a matter of how much he was willing to spend. It was strictly dollars and cents. Here is one that The Way Ministry will not contest because they are obviously well financed:
TITLE III--TRADEMARK CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION (also known as S. 1948)
Enacted on November 29, 1999
SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES
(a) SHORT TITLE- This title may be cited as the `Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act'.
(b) REFERENCES TO THE TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946- Any reference in this title to the Trademark Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).
SEC. 3002. CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
(d) (1)
(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
(B) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. `
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term `traffics in' refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
[(d)] (2)
(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if--
(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or
(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by--
(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and
(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process.
(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or
(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.
(D) (i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall--
(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and
(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.
(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order.
[(d)] (3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.
[(d)] (4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.'
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
16
22
47
Popular Days
Apr 6
37
Apr 2
37
Apr 3
35
Apr 5
31
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 24 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 16 posts
LG 22 posts
pjroberge 47 posts
Popular Days
Apr 6 2004
37 posts
Apr 2 2004
37 posts
Apr 3 2004
35 posts
Apr 5 2004
31 posts
pjroberge
A few clarifications:
1) I have a couple of attorneys already. I am not stupid. I will represent myself and do the paperwork as long as I can competently do so to save costs. (I had a trademark attorney respond to the letter posted previously, remember?)
2) TWI threatened me to give them the domain or else. They are the aggressor
3) I put the domain name up for sale with an e-mail address for the sale so that TWI could discretely purchase the domain through an innie and save face
4) TWI made no offer at all. Just threats
5) TWI has implicated my web design business and Ex-Cultworld in this lawsuit. That is why I will not give into them.
6) I know they are copying everything. Again I am not stupid. I want them to know I will not go easy and let them reflect on how costly their harrassment will be to them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
golfie:
This company cannot be sued because the IC # is 42 which is the class of goods and services that company offers, and TWI's trademark is in class 41 for their goods and services of a religious nature.My use of the domain name TheWayInternational.com was being used in class 38 goods and services, namely news reporting organizations.
Edited by pjrobergeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
OH, I get it ......
This is why Forrest Gump had trouble
Just think if Forrest had made positive confessions!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hope R:
I thought it was a Word in Biz weekend, but maybe not.
They were not going after spin-offs and ex-Way people only. He had a list of totally unrelated organizations that used "The Way", or "Power for...." something. One example was a magazine put out by the American TaeKwonDo Association called "The Way Magazine". (The word "Do" in Korean means "the way".)I {blushing in shame} was the one who alerted them to that particualr one, so my ears perked up when I heard Allen talking about it.
After a letter from TWI's lawyers they changed the name of the mag to The Way of TaeKwonDo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
You might want to CLICK HERE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cherished Child
Long Gone, do you believe that TWI had every right to sue Pat for using the name, "The Way of Christ Ministries"? What makes them right in asserting that the use of the words, "The Way" was an infringment on their copyright? You've still not addressed the fact that there are many other Christian organizations who are using the words, "the way" within their titles. Why insist that Pat, and Pat only, cease and desist in this instance? Why do you insist that TWI stands on moral high ground? If the town of "Moral High Ground" were located on their rear end, they couldn't find it with a compass, a map, and a flashlight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Cherished child: Thank you
Long gone: I appreciate your link to the trademark office. I have spent dozens of hours there previous to this lawsuit.
The quick reference page does not list this category. You would have to do a more thorough job of research by reading the actual statutes.
Hint: it is a class of goods and services for electronic/internet news organizations unlike the ones you referenced which I believe are for for print media. Check for yourself as I was not interested in these classes and don't have all the particulars. Long Gone, the last discussion was nice and civil thanks.
I appreciate these types of discussions as I formulate my defence. When TWI actually serves me with the lawsuit summons instead of some other person with the same name across the state, I will be able to answer properly.
Gee, TWI's attorneys couldn't even get my address right.
Well, I am only listed in the phone book, have a valid drivers license, am listed with th VT Secretary of State, all with the correct address. How long would it have taken you to find my address? I am sure you woudn't have taken long.
Part of my December response to TWI's attorneys
Your claim of unfair competition is also without merit, because the services provided by the website you claim infringed on your client's mark were not "Educational Services-Namely, Providing Religious Teaching Services by Means of Motion Pictures and Slide Presentations and Producing and Presenting Musical, Dramaticomusical, and Dramatic Productions and Presenting Works of Art, Publishing of Periodicals and Booklets of a Religious Nature" as stated in The Way's trademark description.
Your client's mark was granted under class 41, and only protects the trademark from infringement by similar organizations, and in the same class.
The alleged infringement by Excultworld Magazine, Inc. which has been incorporated for years as a web magazine, a member of the New England Press Association, and not a religious publication, would be listed under a class 38 and or class 42 classification of goods and services as other organizations of similar purpose are.
Your claim of of dilution requires that the alleged infringer do so within the same class of goods and services. Since this is not the case, again your legal argument is without merit. Further, even if the alleged infringer was in the same class of goods and services, your argument falls short because there are tens of thousands of religious organizations that use "The Way" in the name of their organization or website, all of which would be infringers by your definition. It could be argued unsuccessfully that a drop of water into a lake would dilute it, which is the situation with your client's trademark.
TWI's attorneys never came back with a rebuttal to my legal arguments. They just sued. They were not interested in a peaceful resolution, just being a bully.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
"3) I put the domain name up for sale with an e-mail address for the sale so that TWI could discretely purchase the domain through an innie and save face"
I'm confused. I thought you said a few pages back that selling the domain name was a joke. Or was just the $15,000 price tag a joke?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Linda: The price tag was the joke. However my point was that TWI didn't even make a counter offer at all.
Most people in our society don't pay the asking price marked, but haggle. TWI didn't even write your price is ridiculous, I will give you $____
TWI instead tried to bully me into giving it to them, and when I wouldn't bend over for them, sued.
And the idiots could have saved all the hassle that's coming by acting civil.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadie
Pat, did it ever occur to you that you already have a web site and no longer need this particular domain?
How aobut plurality giving???
:)--> After all, TWI is so generous in giving to the household 
Link to comment
Share on other sites
insurgent
How about "The Way" Bible? Who owns the rights to that and that name? I know out witnessing people always think we are a certain religion with our own Bible by the same name.
Pat, I hope it goes well for you and that you kick their a**. I Don't know how well this thread will go over in court, but I sure hope the best for you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Long Gone:
I did a search on "The Way". I looked at a number of pages. I never found "The Way. I did find "The Way of Christ" which Pat should have been able to register as a trademark. Pat was not able to complete his trademark registration solely because TWI had enough money to keep opposing Pat's trademark. This was not based on right or wrong or a genuine conflict in the trade mark law. Had Pat had enough money for this he would have gotten his trademark.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
mark:
Your posting was correct. Ever the negative poster on this issue, Long Gone will never admit that I have anything right in this matter.
My application contrary to somone who has no idea about the circumstances, was proper and was supervised by a very experienced intellectual property attorney who has practiced before the US Supreme court winning several cases.
As you stated accuratly, my application was found to not conflict with TWI's trademark, and if TWI didn't oppose it, would have been my trademark.
In actuality, my proposed trademark would have been a much stronger one than TWI's generic and highly diluted "The Way" which would never had been approved today, especially if the true nature of the phrase was revealed in the application.
Unfortunatly, TWI was willing to spend more money to mess with me than I had to fight them with, and wanted to disrupt my schooling during the summer semester where the classes are over in 1/2 the time, very intense and suicidal to miss even one class.
They wanted to depose me for days over the trademark issue. Their real motive was not the trademark in my opinion, but a backwards way of looking at all my records which was part of their document request.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
LG said:
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.
>>
LG I don't know you at all so I'm just representing an opinion here. I don't think of this domain legal situation as being Quixotic. Seems to me that there are ongoing efforts to "try" this case here at Gspot when its really Pat's time and energy and ultimately
his choice to go forward. I don't see this as being foolishly impractical at all.
From my point of view TWI wants to cybersquat
by getting all related domains so no one else
can - thus enabling them to minimize the possibility that so called "internet defamation" could occur. One could argue
that they have no intention of using these
domains for any other reason than to keep
them from someone else who might in fact have
a legitimate use for it. And who is right ? I don't know but thats what the courts are for.
Furtermore I think there is value in getting TWI into court because what they do and say becomes public record , for the most part, and its yet another data point on how they function.
If I had the time I might consider moving
forward with some legal action against TWI for no other reason than to get them into court so they would have to answer questions and get it out there in the public record. It might be a drop in the bucket but it would be helpful.
But I probably wouldn't post about it publicly prior to and as I'm doing it though for better or worse thats the choice of another.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Diazbro:
Your observations are very perceptive and a welcome change from the people who want to make out to be the bad guy.
When I used the domain name to legitematly point people to sources of info about TWI, they went for the lawsuit.
I have a legitemate use for the domain name, and TWI doesn't like the use. It's that simple, and the use is not one that infringes on their trademark either.
They know it, and I know it. The lawsuit is strictly harrassment....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Pat,
If I was a lawyer, I would tell you to bring this topic up on as many threads as possible, discuss your tactics and legal strategies, and explain your version of the history of this conflict as publicly as possible. If I was a lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do.
Oh, clarification: If I was TWI's lawyer, that's what I would tell you to do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
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.
Edited by LGLink to comment
Share on other sites
AdiosMiCorazon
Pat,
Are ya talking to me?
I never called you stupid.
Just trying to give my 2cents, after all you started this thread.
I don't see to many lawyers telling their clients to post their strategy on the internet, barn, billboard, etc. I don't think its a good idea, but heck what do I know.
keep right on keeping on, no skin off my nose. Only I would not like to see you lose. Losing is always a posibility, just ask Martha.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Long Gone:
I really think you are very bright. I think you bring up some good points. However, Pat would have prevailed on "the Way of Christ". It was a matter of how much he was willing to spend. It was strictly dollars and cents. Here is one that The Way Ministry will not contest because they are obviously well financed:
http://www.wayofthemaster.com/
I do agree with Rafael that it is probably not a good idea for Pat to be discussing this on an open forum if he intends to battle this out in court.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdiosMiCorazon
TITLE III--TRADEMARK CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION (also known as S. 1948)
Enacted on November 29, 1999
SEC. 3001. SHORT TITLE; REFERENCES
(a) SHORT TITLE- This title may be cited as the `Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act'.
(b) REFERENCES TO THE TRADEMARK ACT OF 1946- Any reference in this title to the Trademark Act of 1946 shall be a reference to the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.).
SEC. 3002. CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION.
(a) IN GENERAL- Section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C. 1125) is amended by inserting at the end the following:
(d) (1)
(A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person--
(i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and
(ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that--
(I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark;
(II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or
(III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706 of title 18, United States Code, or section 220506 of title 36, United States Code.
(B) (i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to--
(I) the trademark or other intellectual property rights of the person, if any, in the domain name;
(II) the extent to which the domain name consists of the legal name of the person or a name that is otherwise commonly used to identify that person;
(III) the person's prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV) the person's bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(V) the person's intent to divert consumers from the mark owner's online location to a site accessible under the domain name that could harm the goodwill represented by the mark, either for commercial gain or with the intent to tarnish or disparage the mark, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site;
(VI) the person's offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VII) the person's provision of material and misleading false contact information when applying for the registration of the domain name, the person's intentional failure to maintain accurate contact information, or the person's prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
(VIII) the person's registration or acquisition of multiple domain names which the person knows are identical or confusingly similar to marks of others that are distinctive at the time of registration of such domain names, or dilutive of famous marks of others that are famous at the time of registration of such domain names, without regard to the goods or services of the parties; and
(IX) the extent to which the mark incorporated in the person's domain name registration is or is not distinctive and famous within the meaning of subsection ©(1) of section 43.
(ii) Bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A) shall not be found in any case in which the court determines that the person believed and had reasonable grounds to believe that the use of the domain name was a fair use or otherwise lawful. `
© In any civil action involving the registration, trafficking, or use of a domain name under this paragraph, a court may order the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark.
(D) A person shall be liable for using a domain name under subparagraph (A) only if that person is the domain name registrant or that registrant's authorized licensee.
(E) As used in this paragraph, the term `traffics in' refers to transactions that include, but are not limited to, sales, purchases, loans, pledges, licenses, exchanges of currency, and any other transfer for consideration or receipt in exchange for consideration.
[(d)] (2)
(A) The owner of a mark may file an in rem civil action against a domain name in the judicial district in which the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located if--
(i) the domain name violates any right of the owner of a mark registered in the Patent and Trademark Office, or protected under subsection (a) or ©; and
(ii) the court finds that the owner--
(I) is not able to obtain in personam jurisdiction over a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1); or
(II) through due diligence was not able to find a person who would have been a defendant in a civil action under paragraph (1) by--
(aa) sending a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this paragraph to the registrant of the domain name at the postal and e-mail address provided by the registrant to the registrar; and
(bb) publishing notice of the action as the court may direct promptly after filing the action.
(B) The actions under subparagraph (A)(ii) shall constitute service of process.
© In an in rem action under this paragraph, a domain name shall be deemed to have its situs in the judicial district in which--
(i) the domain name registrar, registry, or other domain name authority that registered or assigned the domain name is located; or
(ii) documents sufficient to establish control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name are deposited with the court.
(D) (i) The remedies in an in rem action under this paragraph shall be limited to a court order for the forfeiture or cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the owner of the mark. Upon receipt of written notification of a filed, stamped copy of a complaint filed by the owner of a mark in a United States district court under this paragraph, the domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name authority shall--
(I) expeditiously deposit with the court documents sufficient to establish the court's control and authority regarding the disposition of the registration and use of the domain name to the court; and
(II) not transfer, suspend, or otherwise modify the domain name during the pendency of the action, except upon order of the court.
(ii) The domain name registrar or registry or other domain name authority shall not be liable for injunctive or monetary relief under this paragraph except in the case of bad faith or reckless disregard, which includes a willful failure to comply with any such court order.
[(d)] (3) The civil action established under paragraph (1) and the in rem action established under paragraph (2), and any remedy available under either such action, shall be in addition to any other civil action or remedy otherwise applicable.
[(d)] (4) The in rem jurisdiction established under paragraph (2) shall be in addition to any other jurisdiction that otherwise exists, whether in rem or in personam.'
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.