Jump to content
GreaseSpot Cafe

TWI sued me, I sued back


pjroberge
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 310
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

quote:
You cannot vigorously assert your intellectual property rights while ignoring those of others without being guilty of hypocrisy.
I am not ignoring anyone's rights that have any. I don't feel TWI has any legitimate rights to the trademark "The Way".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
As has been said before, it's "The Way International" name that you have no right to.
When I used it, I felt that I had a fair use right to use it for informational purposes knowing I was not selling competing religious goods and services with it.

As far an only TWI having a right to that domain name, there are at least 5 ministries and probably 15 businesses that would disagree...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LongGone,

I have read those links over a few times, not much of a chance for the defendant to prevail in this is there?

Zix,

quote:
Bringing needless emotion into the discussion does not help.

Have to disagree, heck the defense is resting on emotion! If a jury decides to rule despite the law, what judge will sit and allow that in their court? Don’t forget the instructions to the jury always is to make their ruling according to the evidence and the law.

Dang, I just hope that the foolish actions of one don’t ill affect all the other ex-way sites. I see that possibility more likely than the ridiculous doomsday posted before. Hey legal buffs, could all this open the door for TWI concerning other ex-way sites? If it possibly could, maybe that’s why the extra lawyers........................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

St Pat the Persecuted,

quote:
Answers:

Waydale is closed

Greasespot is a source of info for TWI

John Juedes has the wherewithal to rip TWI a new one if they tried


1) Your first 'answer' doesn't answer my question re: Waydale as my question applied to when it was open, and TWI didn't go after them. ... Strike one!

2) How does Greasespot being a source of info negate whether or not TWI could attempt to nail them as per your previous presumption? ... Strike two!

3) Maybe Juedes does and maybe Juedes doesn't. But that doesn't support your vacuous claim that sites that b*tch about TWI are ones that they can go after, either legally or any other-wise. ... Strike three. .... You're out!

Pat, I'm no attorney, and even I can see that TWI doesn't have any legal leg to stand on in any way, shape, or form to simply go after sites that give them bad press. There is something called the 1st Amendment that douses that fire in a hurry. Ergo, your 'theory' (and I'm using that term very charitably here) about you being persecuted only because you are 'shining the light upon TWI' falls flat.

Now whether they have the legal solidity behind their case or not remains to be seen, but I tend to view Long Gone's (and Raf's) 'legal interpretation' as far surpassing yours.

With that, Happy Hunting!

icon_cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldiesman,

Please keep Zix's quote in context: he's speaking to an ex follower who rejects TWI's authority. If you apply his statement to a different context, it would not be a proper application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grizz,

quote:
Dang, I just hope that the foolish actions of one don’t ill affect all the other ex-way sites. I see that possibility more likely than the ridiculous doomsday posted before. Hey legal buffs, could all this open the door for TWI concerning other ex-way sites? If it possibly could, maybe that’s why the extra lawyers........................

I don't think that the 'blast radius' of Pat's case (should he lose) will go much beyond Pat's site. As I mentioned before, simply bitching about TWI is something that they can't touch, unless they have a solid case of liable/slander; something that has often been a *bear* to prove in court, and even with 50 mil, TWI ain't exactly Bill Gate$ here.

Ie., I see no problem for Greasespot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garth,

Thanks, but it was a wild-a$$ statement. Thought it was appropriate because it *fits* many of the similar statements made here.

You know...........................like family name icon_rolleyes.gif:rolleyes:-->

And here I thought his middle name was H. icon_biggrin.gif:D-->

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by GarthP2000:

I don't think that the 'blast radius' of Pat's case (should he lose) will go much beyond Pat's site.


There's no reason that it should affect even the sites Pat currently uses, much less anyone else. TWI has not raised objections to "The Path of Christ Ministry," Ex-Wayworld, ExCultworld, or caicusa.org, all of which Pat has or does administer. The issues really are as TWI presents them, whether we agree with their take on them or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:
Originally posted by Grizzy:

Zix,

quote:
Bringing needless emotion into the discussion does not help.

Have to disagree, heck the defense is resting on emotion! If a jury decides to rule despite the law, what judge will sit and allow that in their court? Don’t forget the instructions to the jury always is to make their ruling according to the evidence and the law.


Grizzy: Perhaps I was unclear. I only meant in the context of THIS discussion, on this particular thread. Of course Pat should use every ace up his sleeve -- in court. What I meant was that it does no good for US to take it personally beforehand.

And as for the jury ruling despite the law, it's a slippery slope. Technically, it's called "jury nullification" and it's legal. However, the losing party can immediately move for summary judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and it comes down to the judge's decision, which depends on a number of factors. If it's a criminal case, it's highly unlikely that the judge would reverse the jury's verdict due to double jeopardy or other issues. Best to let the case move to the appellate process.

It's more likely to happen in a civil case when one party is awarded a huge amount of damages by a sympathetic jury but there has been no real proof of liability presented. In such a case, the judge can modify the jury award or set the verdict aside altogether. That probably varies a lot from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Path of Christ another "offshoot"?

I hardly think so. If it was, it would have at least a resemblance of the former TWI. Too much difference. The only thing similar was the phrase "The Way" of Christ, but that phrase, "The Way" has been used so many times by so many churches. TWI didn't invent that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe someone in one of the former posts indicated they thought Pat was in an offshoot. I disagreed, but only after several posters wrote something else first. please excuse the lateness of my response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

eagle:

I have bought materials from CES, CFF and CBC, but do not belong or fellowship with any offshoot.

My personal belief is that a person must get away from all Wierwillian based groups and take a fresh look at Christianity without being limited by the offshoot mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHECK THIS OUT:

quote:
Neiman Marcus loses Web case

Anti-fur site's name, NeimanCarcass, is not too similar, agency says

07:38 PM CDT on Wednesday, May 19, 2004

By MICHAEL PRECKER / The Dallas Morning News

A satirical Web site spreading an anti-fur message by making fun of Neiman Marcus has survived a bid by the Dallas-based retailer to turn it into roadkill.

The National Arbitration Forum, an agency empowered to resolve disputes over Web addresses on the Internet, ruled that the Fund for Animals can continue using domain names that include "NeimanCarcass."

In March, Neiman Marcus filed a complaint that the Web address was "confusingly similar" to its own and would divert customers and hurt its business.

The Fund for Animals, which was founded by the late author and critic Cleveland Amory and operates an animal sanctuary in Henderson County, put up the site about a year ago.

The organization said the name was a parody that did not infringe on the retailer's business.

Visitors to neimancarcass.com find photos of suffering animals, pleas not to buy fur and links to urge Neiman Marcus not to sell it.

"We're not telling people to boycott Neiman Marcus," says Michael Markarian, president of the Fund for Animals, which is based in Silver Spring, Md.

"We're educating the public and asking them to speak out."

Mark Schaaf, a spokesman for Neiman Marcus, said the company had no comment.

The ruling by arbitrator Charles K. McCotter Jr., which was dated May 14, concluded that "NeimanCarcass was sufficiently distinguished" from Neiman Marcus and clearly a parody that would not confuse customers.

"It is unreasonable to believe that a reasonable consumer would be confused as to what the Web site is about or whether it is owned, sponsored or affiliated with" Neiman Marcus, he wrote.

Pierre Grzybowski, grass-roots coordinator for the Fund for Animals, called the decision "a victory both for free speech and the millions of animals who rely on us to tell the truth."

Mr. Grzybowski said the organization was targeting the upscale chain "because they set trends among the major department stores. We're eager to work with Neiman Marcus to become socially responsible."


hmmmm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya think? Here's a group using the exact name of a retail giant... just thought it was interesting though given this suit... now they (NM) were victorious in an earlier suit against the same group to get them to surrender the domain "Neimanskills"... but they were not this time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom,

The courts have ruled that gripe sites and parody sites are pretty much ok. You can simply add "sucks" to the ned of the domain name

For example, it should be perfect ok for me to register and use the domain name:

twis.gif

As long as I do not use this site for commerce that would compete with TWI - they can't touch me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So wait, Goey, are you saying that if I were to register:

twis.gif

they couldn't sue me?

That's pretty amazing. Maybe was could park there and start a bidding war for twis.gif

I think you may be onto something.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...