Since Pat never misrepresented himself as the real TWI, and since there was no representation that the donations he solicited (if he even received any through that site) were supposed to go to TWI, it's entirely possible that this decision is sufficient precedent to give Pat a win.
I think it improves his chances somewhat but I also think he faces some formidable obstacles.
Pat’s original use of the domain (thewayinternational.com) was not merely as a “gripe site” but as the website for The Way of Christ Ministry. Whether or not Pat actually competed with The Way International is arguable, but Pat stated that “The Way of Christ Ministry” mark was used in commerce in his application to register that mark. His application was for a different class than TWI’s marks but “ministerial services” is pretty vague and does not exclude the possibility of infringement. TWI claimed that and opposed Pat’s application. The underlying issues were never settled, because Pat abandoned his application. He had previously stopped using the disputed domain and changed the name to The Path of Christ Ministry, which he hosted at waychrist.com. BTW, check your PM’s for a little something I discovered that I don’t want to post here.
If the factual statements in the TWI complaint are correct, Pat later used thewayinternational.com to advertise both ExCultworld and PR Computer Services, and to solicit donations. I don’t know how a court would rule on that but it is at least arguable that those constitute “commercial use in commerce.” That is exactly what TWI is claiming.
Finally, it is indisputable that Pat offered the domain for sale, at an asking price of $15,000.00.
quote:OVERVIEW: Trademark holder could not win on claims of infringement, unfair competition, and dilution against defendants who registered an Internet domain name and posted it for sale by auction since these actions did not constitute "use of" the trademark.
Pat, the point of offering the domain name for sale was not raised as a matter of infringement, competition, or dilution. It was raised as a matter of cybersquatting.
Not a legal point: just going back over the conversation here. This is not to be misconstrued as a legal statement or advice or anything of the kind. This is strictly about the mechanics of this conversation as carried out on this thread.
quote:Pat used the disputed domain (indirectly) to solicit donations and to advertise his computer services. He also put it up for sale.
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.
--> --> --> This reminds me of when they aquired the "WAY BRAND" from some rancher out West.
Can't duplicate the "brand" here, but you all must remember it -- WAY all integrated into the "W" with a circle around it. (Supposedly) some rancher out West had that as his "brand", and once vpw heard of it, he just "had to have it"
Likewise (supposedly), "said rancher" was paid handsomely for the privilidge of giving it up to someone who could really use it. I remember vpw trotting this thing out on stage at the ROA,and making a really big deal of it.
Don't remember the year, but I do remember the event, and as I said -- "supposedly". I did not question the MOG in those days. -->
It was a cheap shot to suggest that my standard was personal and not Christian. If you think I'm mistaken, that's fine. Your prerogative, like I said. But you crossed the line by suggesting that I'm just looking for a verse to back up my point of view. It's the Scripture that informs my point of view on this, not vice versa.
>>
Raf I do think that you are reflecting a personal point of view that PR's actions don't reflect the spirit of the teachings found in the Sermon on The Mount. But I think thats
human nature and hardly a problem (more on
that below).
Now perhaps its your point of view because you feel that there is strong biblical context but its a conclusion that you have reached on a personal basis. Of course no where did I say you were somehow wrong just that its subjective.
For example I've read the sections to which you are referring and I don't have the same ideas that you do though I would still characterize myself as a christian. And while I understand the Bible's call to a more elevated standard of behavior I don't know that something like PR's
lawsuit is in obvious contrast to that.
I saw this in someone's signature file the other
day:
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. -- Talmudic Saying
I'm not posting this AT you or anyone as I spent a long time reflecting on it as it seems
to me that many of my personal beliefs have been cultivated and nurtured on the basis of how "right" they feel or how congruent they
might be with existing patterns of thought.
I'm sure I'm not unique and the fact this
expression has been around for a while does
support the concept that we are relfecting a
personal level of opinion in most cases. That
is no great crime - it appears to be characteristic of human nature.
diazbro: No offense, but the thread is getting away from the lawsuit and devolving into a personality clash. Hasn't enough time been spent on questioning each other's motives for now?
Tom -- Ha! :D--> The only tip I had was the "way brand" thing. Wonder what kind of "payment" the man received , and how willing he was to give it up. -->
diazbro: No offense, but the thread is getting away from the lawsuit and devolving into a personality clash. Hasn't enough time been spent on questioning each other's motives for now?
>>
A fair question though I feel that the
larger part of LG's opposition to PR's actions
are based upon some fundamental dislike of how this was rolled out as opposed to any alleged misuse of the legal system on PR's part. Therefore I think its important to address the situation on this level.
You yourself have been in some threads that
became interesting so I'm sure you can appreciate that any thread can evolve into something else over time.
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. (Count III of TWI’s complaint.) The facts related to ACPA are quite different in the two cases. The laws on which TWI’s other three counts are based are not mentioned at all in the decision Goey cited.
Concerning Pat’s statement about TWI’s marks not being famous, that doesn’t really matter. It’s completely irrelevant to Counts I, II, and IV and not necessary to Count III. All TWI has to prove on that count is bad faith intent to profit from TWI’s mark, that the mark was distinctive at the time the domain was registered, and that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark. I think TWI wins hands down on that count. The others could be difficult to prove regarding Pat’s recent activities but less so regarding his activities of a few years ago.
The following is intended to be helpful:
Pat, if you’re going to proceed with this thing, which I think is dangerous and foolish, at least carefully consider whether or not you are protected by a three-year time limit for action against trademark infringement and unfair competition related to “The Way of Christ Ministry” website. I think you are protected by the statute of limitations but if not, I think you’re far more vulnerable than you think you are.
And why did TWI just add 2 more lawyers to the case officially?
I don't know. It could be insignificant. It could indicate that they have decided to go after you more agressively than they originally intended. I doubt if it indicates that you have them running scared.
quote:I think you are protected by the statute of limitations
Do you know the statute for this? I have been looking...
I was going on memory but my memory was faulty. What I had read previously concerned copyright violations, not trademark infringements. The Lanham Act doesn't contain a statute of limitations. You'll find THIS DECISION to be informative. (Look near the bottom, under "Statute of Limitations.")
quote: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. (Count III of TWI’s complaint.) The facts related to ACPA are quite different in the two cases. The laws on which TWI’s other three counts are based are not mentioned at all in the decision Goey cited.
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,
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.
are you disagreeing with Long Gone? Because the info you presented only reinforces his point. Unless I'm missing something.
In any event...
I've been rereading this whole thread today.
Zix noted early on that TWI can produce witnesses who say there was no Internet ban just as easily as Pat could produce witnesses who say there was. The difference, and it's in Pat's favor, is that Pat can produce a witness who told TWI to register the domain name at the center of this dispute. They declined to do so, providing Pat the opportunity to secure the name himself.
Eagle, I missed something you said about the reasons you want critics to stay silent. I understand your point but agree with the person who responded that TWI's lawyers are probably better than we laypeople at coming up with legal arguments. In other words, they don't need our help.
Also, I did not mean to imply that you were abridging my right to free speech. I only meant to assert my right to free speech and, as such, decline your suggestion that this should be discussed privately.
Goey, Long Gone, your insights into the legal issues remain fascinating.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
41
41
60
Popular Days
May 5
35
May 4
32
May 6
28
May 7
22
Top Posters In This Topic
Goey 23 posts
Raf 41 posts
LG 41 posts
pjroberge 60 posts
Popular Days
May 5 2004
35 posts
May 4 2004
32 posts
May 6 2004
28 posts
May 7 2004
22 posts
LG
Pat’s original use of the domain (thewayinternational.com) was not merely as a “gripe site” but as the website for The Way of Christ Ministry. Whether or not Pat actually competed with The Way International is arguable, but Pat stated that “The Way of Christ Ministry” mark was used in commerce in his application to register that mark. His application was for a different class than TWI’s marks but “ministerial services” is pretty vague and does not exclude the possibility of infringement. TWI claimed that and opposed Pat’s application. The underlying issues were never settled, because Pat abandoned his application. He had previously stopped using the disputed domain and changed the name to The Path of Christ Ministry, which he hosted at waychrist.com. BTW, check your PM’s for a little something I discovered that I don’t want to post here.
If the factual statements in the TWI complaint are correct, Pat later used thewayinternational.com to advertise both ExCultworld and PR Computer Services, and to solicit donations. I don’t know how a court would rule on that but it is at least arguable that those constitute “commercial use in commerce.” That is exactly what TWI is claiming.
Finally, it is indisputable that Pat offered the domain for sale, at an asking price of $15,000.00.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Pat, the point of offering the domain name for sale was not raised as a matter of infringement, competition, or dilution. It was raised as a matter of cybersquatting.
Not a legal point: just going back over the conversation here. This is not to be misconstrued as a legal statement or advice or anything of the kind. This is strictly about the mechanics of this conversation as carried out on this thread.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
And ex-cultworld magazine is also not in the same class of goods and services as TWI's.
TWI's claim that their trademark is famous is so beyond preposterous, that it is unbelievable except to the naive in the rudaments of trademark law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Can't duplicate the "brand" here, but you all must remember it -- WAY all integrated into the "W" with a circle around it. (Supposedly) some rancher out West had that as his "brand", and once vpw heard of it, he just "had to have it"
Likewise (supposedly), "said rancher" was paid handsomely for the privilidge of giving it up to someone who could really use it. I remember vpw trotting this thing out on stage at the ROA,and making a really big deal of it.
Don't remember the year, but I do remember the event, and as I said -- "supposedly". I did not question the MOG in those days.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Now that I think about it -- This all happened around the time Gunnison got into the "fast track". What year was that anyway?
-->
At least I think this is the time the WAY brand showed up. With a Western "root locale", they needed something "western" to identify it by.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Had to have been early 80s, since I remember the first "Branded" album had the brand on its cover.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
It was a cheap shot to suggest that my standard was personal and not Christian. If you think I'm mistaken, that's fine. Your prerogative, like I said. But you crossed the line by suggesting that I'm just looking for a verse to back up my point of view. It's the Scripture that informs my point of view on this, not vice versa.
>>
Raf I do think that you are reflecting a personal point of view that PR's actions don't reflect the spirit of the teachings found in the Sermon on The Mount. But I think thats
human nature and hardly a problem (more on
that below).
Now perhaps its your point of view because you feel that there is strong biblical context but its a conclusion that you have reached on a personal basis. Of course no where did I say you were somehow wrong just that its subjective.
For example I've read the sections to which you are referring and I don't have the same ideas that you do though I would still characterize myself as a christian. And while I understand the Bible's call to a more elevated standard of behavior I don't know that something like PR's
lawsuit is in obvious contrast to that.
I saw this in someone's signature file the other
day:
We do not see things as they are, we see things as we are. -- Talmudic Saying
I'm not posting this AT you or anyone as I spent a long time reflecting on it as it seems
to me that many of my personal beliefs have been cultivated and nurtured on the basis of how "right" they feel or how congruent they
might be with existing patterns of thought.
I'm sure I'm not unique and the fact this
expression has been around for a while does
support the concept that we are relfecting a
personal level of opinion in most cases. That
is no great crime - it appears to be characteristic of human nature.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
So as not to get into a doctrinal debate, I'll drop the point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Long Gone said:
Yes, vanity. I wrote that on April 4, on page 5 of that thread.
Yes and you also referred to it as a "piddling
little squabble" and I asked if thats how you
feel then why are you still posting and expending energy on it unless of course you
are taking it seriously now though are perhaps
hesistant to admit that PR might have a case
after all despite your best efforts to
convince him that he didn't. If its a
"piddling little squabble" then why bother ?
Long Gone 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.
Looks like those windmills have just hired two more attorneys.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
diazbro: No offense, but the thread is getting away from the lawsuit and devolving into a personality clash. Hasn't enough time been spent on questioning each other's motives for now?
Just asking,
Zix
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
More law tips. less antagonism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
no dmill...
Send your lawsuit helpful ideas to: lawtips@prowebtechs.com
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Tom -- Ha!
:D--> The only tip I had was the "way brand" thing. Wonder what kind of "payment" the man received , and how willing he was to give it up. 
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Zix said:
diazbro: No offense, but the thread is getting away from the lawsuit and devolving into a personality clash. Hasn't enough time been spent on questioning each other's motives for now?
>>
A fair question though I feel that the
larger part of LG's opposition to PR's actions
are based upon some fundamental dislike of how this was rolled out as opposed to any alleged misuse of the legal system on PR's part. Therefore I think its important to address the situation on this level.
You yourself have been in some threads that
became interesting so I'm sure you can appreciate that any thread can evolve into something else over time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
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. (Count III of TWI’s complaint.) The facts related to ACPA are quite different in the two cases. The laws on which TWI’s other three counts are based are not mentioned at all in the decision Goey cited.
Concerning Pat’s statement about TWI’s marks not being famous, that doesn’t really matter. It’s completely irrelevant to Counts I, II, and IV and not necessary to Count III. All TWI has to prove on that count is bad faith intent to profit from TWI’s mark, that the mark was distinctive at the time the domain was registered, and that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark. I think TWI wins hands down on that count. The others could be difficult to prove regarding Pat’s recent activities but less so regarding his activities of a few years ago.
The following is intended to be helpful:
Pat, if you’re going to proceed with this thing, which I think is dangerous and foolish, at least carefully consider whether or not you are protected by a three-year time limit for action against trademark infringement and unfair competition related to “The Way of Christ Ministry” website. I think you are protected by the statute of limitations but if not, I think you’re far more vulnerable than you think you are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
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.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Long Gone,
Thank you for the case. I will probably use it in my defense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Dupe
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I'm scratching my head, Goey...
are you disagreeing with Long Gone? Because the info you presented only reinforces his point. Unless I'm missing something.
In any event...
I've been rereading this whole thread today.
Zix noted early on that TWI can produce witnesses who say there was no Internet ban just as easily as Pat could produce witnesses who say there was. The difference, and it's in Pat's favor, is that Pat can produce a witness who told TWI to register the domain name at the center of this dispute. They declined to do so, providing Pat the opportunity to secure the name himself.
Eagle, I missed something you said about the reasons you want critics to stay silent. I understand your point but agree with the person who responded that TWI's lawyers are probably better than we laypeople at coming up with legal arguments. In other words, they don't need our help.
Also, I did not mean to imply that you were abridging my right to free speech. I only meant to assert my right to free speech and, as such, decline your suggestion that this should be discussed privately.
Goey, Long Gone, your insights into the legal issues remain fascinating.
Pat,
Seriously,
Good luck.
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.