New Zealand Website Owner Responds to the Church of 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, 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, does not even exist, so compared to 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.”

Scientology’s abuse of the law

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.”

Vacation? Short break? Day trip? Get Skip-the-line tickets at GetYourGuide.


(Listed if other than Religion News Blog, or if not shown above)
The Open Press, New Zealand
OCt. 28, 2005 Press Release

Religion News Blog posted this on Friday October 28, 2005.
Last updated if a date shows here:


More About This Subject



Our website includes affiliate links, which means we get a small commission -- at no additional cost to you -- for each qualifying purpose. For instance, as an Amazon Associate, Religion News Blog earns from qualifying purchases. That is one reason why we can provide this research service free of charge.

Speaking of which: One way in which you can support us — at no additional cost to you — is by shopping at