Previous entry: How the cult of the guru puts gullible nation under its spell
Next entry: Sect leader’s convictions upheld
Related
Advertisements *
Advertise Here *
Elsewhere
Subscribe: RSS
 |
RNB's RSS feed What is this? |
Subscribe: Email
 |
 Subscribe by Email What is this? |
Most Popular
- Cult leader Wayne Bent ends ‘religious fast’
- John Travolta’s 16-year-old son dies
- Forensic interview with girl in Tony Alamo case leaked to website
- Priest’s 2006 conviction in nun’s murder stands
- 9 Muslims Are Pulled From Plane and Denied Re-entry; Airline Apologizes Next Day
- Neo-Nazi Violence: German Mayor in Hiding after Far-Right Threat
- Jett Travolta’s death shines spotlights on cult’s quackery
- Tom Cruise gets more mileage out of claim that Scientology cured his dyslexia
- Judge: smuggled monkey meat needed for religious reasons? Still need a permit
- Facts don’t fit claims of FLDS welfare fraud
New Zealand Website Owner Responds to the Church of Scientology
More articles on this topic: Scientology(OPENPRESS) October 28, 2005 — Last month the Church of Scientology issued a cease and desist order to the New Zealand owner of a Tom Cruise parody website, www.scientomogy.info demanding they shut down the site and transfer ownership to the Church or face a law suit of up to $100,000. Via email, the Church’s law firm Moxon & Kobrin stated the website domain was an infringement of their trademark and would cause a “likelihood of confusion” with their own, breaking federal law, specifically citing The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).
The Lanham Act contains the federal statutes governing trademark law in the United States and the church would have to prove factors such as “proof of actual confusion” “product types, proximity and marketing”, “their respective appearance and meanings”, and “(bad) intention behind selecting the mark”
Glen Stollery, the website’s owner has now hit back at the church stating “We have researched this and believe their claims are completely without merit. The church can provide no proof as to any confusion regarding the sites. For instance, scientology.info does not even exist, so compared to scienTOMogy.info it is hardly a matter of someone hitting the wrong key. We also have a Full Disclaimer at the top of the front page and in the website’s meta-tags stating that there is no connection between ourselves and the church. Not to mention the fact that the site is completely non-commercial in nature, and does not generate a single cent of revenue nor offers any services of any kind. It is a parody site showing the recent lunacy of Tom Cruise - confusion of any kind with their site is literally impossible.”
Stollery continues “The non-commercial use of a trademark as the domain name of a website — the subject of which is consumer commentary about the products and services represented by the mark — does not constitute infringement under the Lanham Act.” Bosley Medical Institute v. Kremer (9th Cir., Apr. 4, 2005). In this instance, we are even one step further removed as their trademark is “scientology” not “scienTOMogy” Their claims are completely frivolous.”
The purpose of the suit is to harass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass, and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly.
- L. Ron Hubbard, A Manual on the Dissemination of Material, 1955 (See: The Purpose of a Lawsuit is to Harass)
If this is the case then it would not be the first time the law firm would be found guilty of filing frivolous complaints. In 1994, Helena Kobrin of Moxon & Kobrin, counsel for the Church of Scientology, was ordered to pay sanctions in the total sum of $17,775 for filing a frivolous complaint in federal court.
Stollery states on his website that he believes this is simply a way of “scaring any critics into instantly backing down at the prospect of costly lawsuits regardless of their innocence.” In closing he says to the church, “I’m calling your bluff. File your lawsuit, we’re keeping our domain… see you in court.”
What You Can Do From Here
|
Read More Articles On These Topics
Share, Blog About, Bookmark, or Email This Article
Subscribe
Read Another Article
Previous entry: How the cult of the guru puts gullible nation under its spell Next entry: Sect leader’s convictions upheld
RNB Homepage with latest headlinesFind Related Information
Find Related Books
|
Share This Article
To share this page simply copy and paste one of these URL's:
