Pat, how is it possible for The Way to file a Trademark Infringement suit on behalf of a Trademark that they don't legally own?
"They have 4 pending applications for this mark, but in the last couple days, there has been 4 official oppositions(lawsuits) filed against TWI obtaining these new trademarks..."
If this is true, what grounds do they have for claiming Trademark Infringement? Also, who has filed the "4 official oppositions" against TWI obtaining these marks? Was it you? Someone else?
So as far as acting like TWI, this is hardly the case. I simply don't want anybody here giving any ideas to TWI on how to fight PJ.
Raf, that is why I wanted private posts. I could hardly believe you think that is abridging your freedom to express yourself publically. It was a suggestion, that was all.
It's hard to imagine the well-paid lawyers of the "children of the corn" not being already aware of the possible weaknesses that have been raised here concerning Pat's case. Unless one is praying for incredibly stupid lawyers for the other side in order to win this thing.
If Pat doesn't want points of this case being publicly aired, then it would seem an even better and wiser idea if he didn't initiate these threads to begin with.
quote:"They have 4 pending applications for this mark, but in the last couple days, there has been 4 official oppositions(lawsuits) filed against TWI obtaining these new trademarks..."
If this is true, what grounds do they have for claiming Trademark Infringement? Also, who has filed the "4 official oppositions" against TWI obtaining these marks? Was it you? Someone else?
Answer: I filed extentions to file oppositions on TWI proposed trademarks while I see if I can scare up the $1200 filing fees.
There are hundreds of religious groups that use The Way in their name. One may not like the idea that TWI thinks they own Christ who is The Way.
One of them goes by The Way International Ministries (Indiana)and I had their group name in my file of evidence.
If TWI hadn't sued me, I wouldn't have known about the pending trademark applications and wouldn't have been able to alert the group. Perhaps they filed the oppositions...
quote:Does anyone think this was a truthful statement in light of all the churches using The Way, E. Stanley Jones book The Way, or the Catholic bible The Way that were out at the time of this statement?
Pat, I agree with you on that and hope you win. Don't know if you will, but I do see the point how TWI has nerve trying to own the words "The Way". I hope you win on that point.
Don't know if this matters any, but many years ago, Panasonic came out with a portable cassette player labelled "Way" . I don't think it was "The Way", but I have to check, I think I've still got it in my drawer. When I saw that, I promptly bought it as a birthday gift for a way corps family member who I thought would get a kick out of it. They gave it back to me a few years ago, and I need to check to see if I still have it.
sorry raf, i disagree. maybe if they were some important recognized worldwide organization who everyone knew, i would agree.
Excie,
Is Pat an important recognized worldwide organization everyone knows?
I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about common horse sense. Pat took the name of an organization and secured the domain name to malign it. It's just not right.
Christians, if Matthew 5:40 doesn't apply here, where does it EVER apply? (Others, I concede that my argument does not hold sway).
quote:originally posted by Pat:
They are not the only ones to use that name, so it is not theirs exclusively. They do not own it.
You certainly don't. And they have a better claim to it than you. They've used it for decades. You ask why they sued you in fed court instead of before a different body... I have a different challenge: drop the domain name and see if they have ANY grounds to challenge you. They sued you on this issue because you gave them an opening. Gleefully. Good luck.
"This occurs when corporations intimidate people or companies out of their domain names under the guise of trademark ownership, even though the particular use of a domain name does not constitute trademark infringement, dilution, or unfair competition in any manner. Some trademark legal scholars have speculated that this reverse domain hijacking may be met with cancellation of the company's mark under the doctrine of trademark misuse."
Again Raf, you did not read carefully what I posted earlier. If TWI's complaint with me was only about the domain name, they could not have filed their lawsuit in Federal court. They have to file the complaint with ICAAN.
quote:They've used it for decades
Not in class 42 goods and services, which is where I did. TWI does not get ownership of a domain name or anything else for that matter outside of the class of goods they have trademarks for...
quote:secured the domain name to malign it
Baloney. I used the mark to help other ex-members find help and fellowship. This was 4 years before TWI had a website
If I give it to anyone, it will be to a company with the same name that TWI prevented from registering a domain name by their hoarding 14 domain names...
According to the USPTO, 4 official oppositions and 4 extensions to file an opposition have been filed against TWI's applications to register "The Way International" as a trademark.
The 30-Day extensions were filed by Pat Roberge on 4/27/2004. Pat has until 5/29/2004 to file official oppositions.
The offical oppositions Pat mentions were filed by "The Way International Ministries Inc." a Christian group out of Illinois.
All this stuff is a matter of public record and can be researched and seen at the USPTO Web Site - including opposition filings and official decisions. http://www.uspto.gov/
Also ......
TWI has two registerd tradmarks on "The Way". (Not "The Way International" which are pending). These two actually became registered in 1981 and 1982. Reg #1155904 and Reg # 1236084
On 1/9/2002 TWI filed an Opposition to Pat Roberge's application to register "The Way of Christ Minstry" as a trademark. TWI claimed infringment upon their registered trademark (1236084)"The Way" - not "The Way International." Among other things they claimed that "The Way Of Christ Ministry" would be confused with "The Way".
On 8/12/2002 Pat Roberge withdrew his application to register "The Way of Christ Ministry", stating that "...I believe the facts would more than prove my position ... Regetibly however, for the average citizen, justice as in this case comes to those who can afford the lawyers and expenses which award the prize to those who can buy it, not on the merits. Therefore I have withdrawn application without prejudice ..."
On 8/21/2002, based upon Pat Roberge's withdrawal of application and not on the merits of TWI opposition, the USPTO "sustained" TWI's opposition.
Non-religious goods or services offered by anyone, under any name, have nothing to do with this matter. Titles of books have nothing to do with this matter. Other religious organizations with “the way” as part of their name, with or without “international”, have nothing to do with this matter. Opposition to TWI’s application to register the word mark THE WAY INTERNATIONAL has nothing to do with this matter. Those are all merely attempts to distract from the issues, and will be seen as such. The Court is not stupid.
Other domain names have nothing to do with this matter, either. However, the fact that TWI defended its claimed rights regarding one of the domains Pat cites and the decision of the arbitration panel in that case tend to undermine several of Pat’s arguments. The following two quotes are from that decision, which can be read HERE.
quote: The crucial question in all this is whether or not from the outset Mr. Klein was aware of the Complainant and its trade mark rights. If he commenced use of the name The Way Ministry and registered the Domain Name in the knowledge of the existence of the Complainant and its trade mark rights, then what he was doing was calculated to cause confusion and he must be taken to have done it deliberately with a view to damaging the Complainant and/or benefiting unfairly on the back of the Complainant’s goodwill under one or more of the sub-paragraphs of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
quote: 7. Decision
The Complaint is dismissed. As is apparent from the above, the Panel found this a very difficult case to resolve. The Panel is of the view that the Complainant was justified in making the Complaint. This is certainly not a case where it would be appropriate to find a case of reverse domain name hijacking.
Now this is not a decision of a U.S. District Court, but the reasoning behind such a decision is likely to be similar. In Pat’s case, there is no question that he was aware of TWI and its trademarks, whether or not he was aware of any trademark registrations. He had no legitimate interest in the domain name. He chose it specifically with TWI in mind. He initially used it, in part, to defame TWI. He later again used that domain to defame TWI, solicit donations, and advertise his computer services, through links he placed there. Still later, he attempted to profit from the sale of the domain. That issue is clear, or should be to anyone who is not blinded by hatred of TWI.
I think your point is a good one; if it were me, i wouldn't want to entangle myself in this kind of mess... so many other things in life to worry about ...
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
Cherished Child
Pat, how is it possible for The Way to file a Trademark Infringement suit on behalf of a Trademark that they don't legally own?
"They have 4 pending applications for this mark, but in the last couple days, there has been 4 official oppositions(lawsuits) filed against TWI obtaining these new trademarks..."
If this is true, what grounds do they have for claiming Trademark Infringement? Also, who has filed the "4 official oppositions" against TWI obtaining these marks? Was it you? Someone else?
This just gets curiouser and curiouser...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
It's hard to imagine the well-paid lawyers of the "children of the corn" not being already aware of the possible weaknesses that have been raised here concerning Pat's case. Unless one is praying for incredibly stupid lawyers for the other side in order to win this thing.
If Pat doesn't want points of this case being publicly aired, then it would seem an even better and wiser idea if he didn't initiate these threads to begin with.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
sorry raf, i disagree. maybe if they were some important recognized worldwide organization who everyone knew, i would agree.
.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
excathedra,
If we would deny the protections of law to TWI, then we would have no right to claim them for ourselves or anyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Cherished Child,
Answer: I filed extentions to file oppositions on TWI proposed trademarks while I see if I can scare up the $1200 filing fees.There are hundreds of religious groups that use The Way in their name. One may not like the idea that TWI thinks they own Christ who is The Way.
One of them goes by The Way International Ministries (Indiana)and I had their group name in my file of evidence.
If TWI hadn't sued me, I wouldn't have known about the pending trademark applications and wouldn't have been able to alert the group. Perhaps they filed the oppositions...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Don't know if this matters any, but many years ago, Panasonic came out with a portable cassette player labelled "Way" . I don't think it was "The Way", but I have to check, I think I've still got it in my drawer. When I saw that, I promptly bought it as a birthday gift for a way corps family member who I thought would get a kick out of it. They gave it back to me a few years ago, and I need to check to see if I still have it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Excie,
Is Pat an important recognized worldwide organization everyone knows?
I'm not talking about the law. I'm talking about common horse sense. Pat took the name of an organization and secured the domain name to malign it. It's just not right.
Christians, if Matthew 5:40 doesn't apply here, where does it EVER apply? (Others, I concede that my argument does not hold sway).
You certainly don't. And they have a better claim to it than you. They've used it for decades. You ask why they sued you in fed court instead of before a different body... I have a different challenge: drop the domain name and see if they have ANY grounds to challenge you. They sued you on this issue because you gave them an opening. Gleefully. Good luck.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
It's a hard thing to give someone your coat when they're suing your pants off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
"This occurs when corporations intimidate people or companies out of their domain names under the guise of trademark ownership, even though the particular use of a domain name does not constitute trademark infringement, dilution, or unfair competition in any manner. Some trademark legal scholars have speculated that this reverse domain hijacking may be met with cancellation of the company's mark under the doctrine of trademark misuse."
Again Raf, you did not read carefully what I posted earlier. If TWI's complaint with me was only about the domain name, they could not have filed their lawsuit in Federal court. They have to file the complaint with ICAAN.
Not in class 42 goods and services, which is where I did. TWI does not get ownership of a domain name or anything else for that matter outside of the class of goods they have trademarks for... Baloney. I used the mark to help other ex-members find help and fellowship. This was 4 years before TWI had a websiteLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Again, Pat, you miss the point of my opposition to your actions.
You are not The Way International. They are. Give them their domain name already.
I'm not saying you're legally required to do so, but if Matthew 5:40 doesn't apply here, does it ever?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
There's no mention of "covetousness" in the verse or the context.
Please don't confuse the issue.
(Or am I missing your point?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
PJB is a big boy.
He can make up his own mind.
He's made it clear that he does not WISH to take advice to keep his
legal strategies out of their lawyers' hands, nor does he wish to try to
end this by being more morally perfect than the hypocrites that sued him.
So, let him have his fun.
If it turns out to be expensive, time-consuming fun, well, it's still his
fun. Some people spend all their lives playing EverQuest, too.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
i misspelled cloak, should have been "cloke".
cloke of covetousness...
cloke of maliciousness...
are things to get rid of
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Warning- this stuff dry reading....
According to the USPTO, 4 official oppositions and 4 extensions to file an opposition have been filed against TWI's applications to register "The Way International" as a trademark.
The 30-Day extensions were filed by Pat Roberge on 4/27/2004. Pat has until 5/29/2004 to file official oppositions.
The offical oppositions Pat mentions were filed by "The Way International Ministries Inc." a Christian group out of Illinois.
Here is is: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=911...9&pty=OPP&eno=1
All this stuff is a matter of public record and can be researched and seen at the USPTO Web Site - including opposition filings and official decisions. http://www.uspto.gov/
Also ......
TWI has two registerd tradmarks on "The Way". (Not "The Way International" which are pending). These two actually became registered in 1981 and 1982. Reg #1155904 and Reg # 1236084
On 1/9/2002 TWI filed an Opposition to Pat Roberge's application to register "The Way of Christ Minstry" as a trademark. TWI claimed infringment upon their registered trademark (1236084)"The Way" - not "The Way International." Among other things they claimed that "The Way Of Christ Ministry" would be confused with "The Way".
On 8/12/2002 Pat Roberge withdrew his application to register "The Way of Christ Ministry", stating that "...I believe the facts would more than prove my position ... Regetibly however, for the average citizen, justice as in this case comes to those who can afford the lawyers and expenses which award the prize to those who can buy it, not on the merits. Therefore I have withdrawn application without prejudice ..."
On 8/21/2002, based upon Pat Roberge's withdrawal of application and not on the merits of TWI opposition, the USPTO "sustained" TWI's opposition.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Non-religious goods or services offered by anyone, under any name, have nothing to do with this matter. Titles of books have nothing to do with this matter. Other religious organizations with “the way” as part of their name, with or without “international”, have nothing to do with this matter. Opposition to TWI’s application to register the word mark THE WAY INTERNATIONAL has nothing to do with this matter. Those are all merely attempts to distract from the issues, and will be seen as such. The Court is not stupid.
Other domain names have nothing to do with this matter, either. However, the fact that TWI defended its claimed rights regarding one of the domains Pat cites and the decision of the arbitration panel in that case tend to undermine several of Pat’s arguments. The following two quotes are from that decision, which can be read HERE.
Now this is not a decision of a U.S. District Court, but the reasoning behind such a decision is likely to be similar. In Pat’s case, there is no question that he was aware of TWI and its trademarks, whether or not he was aware of any trademark registrations. He had no legitimate interest in the domain name. He chose it specifically with TWI in mind. He initially used it, in part, to defame TWI. He later again used that domain to defame TWI, solicit donations, and advertise his computer services, through links he placed there. Still later, he attempted to profit from the sale of the domain. That issue is clear, or should be to anyone who is not blinded by hatred of TWI.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I apologize for missing the humor oldiesman. I should have seen it.
Internet. Nuance. You know the drill.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i don't know raf, i still don't think they should have it. who are they anyway ?
ps. this is really just my opinion, probably a chip-on-my-shoulder one at that
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thanks Raf...
I think your point is a good one; if it were me, i wouldn't want to entangle myself in this kind of mess... so many other things in life to worry about ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
well to each his own
pat r. has his beliefs and reasons
i worry about things in life other people think are stupid
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
They are The Way International. Pat is not.
I'm bowing out of this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
bye raf see you in other booths
:)-->
--
it doesn't bother me that pat is not. it's a free country. but like i said, i think i have an "attitude."
i don't really care one way or the other in "my" "real" life
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.