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...
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........................
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
23
41
41
60
Popular Days
May 5
35
May 4
32
May 6
28
May 11
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 11 2004
22 posts
pjroberge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
As has been said before, it's "The Way International" name that you have no right to. Dilution of "The Way" mark is a separate matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
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
oldiesman
You've essentially summarized what I've been trying to say for years. Bravo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
holy crapola here's the famous quote.
zix do you realize what you just said ????
see oldiesman's post to me somewhere around here
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
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,
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
GarthP2000
St Pat the Persecuted,
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!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
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
GarthP2000
Grizz,
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
Grizzy
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
-->
And here I thought his middle name was H.
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
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
Eagle
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
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waterbuffalo
Pat,
Please check your pts. I sent you a couple of msgs.
WB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
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
pjroberge
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
Tom Strange
CHECK THIS OUT:
hmmmm?Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Tom,
That's a fair ruling, but it probably has no bearing at all on Pat's case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
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
waterbuffalo
It's not the exact same name, is it?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
well... the Neiman part is...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
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:
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
Raf
So wait, Goey, are you saying that if I were to register:
they couldn't sue me?
That's pretty amazing. Maybe was could park there and start a bidding war for
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.