tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post7178769590330619971..comments2022-10-23T08:50:54.845-04:00Comments on αpokalupto: Adventist®David Hamstrahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-30128126796472935302011-02-02T00:01:57.759-05:002011-02-02T00:01:57.759-05:00Hello, Walter. I'm an indeed aware of the Crea...Hello, Walter. I'm an indeed aware of the Creation SDA case and have it in mind when I say that the Adventist Church does have a right to defend the name "Seventh-day Adventist."David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-864264492359657882011-01-23T15:51:13.215-05:002011-01-23T15:51:13.215-05:00Hello,
I am the Defendant in the trademark lawsui...Hello,<br /><br />I am the Defendant in the trademark lawsuit styled as General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists and General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists v. McGill dba Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, et al. It has been going since 2006, and is now awaiting US Supreme Court approval for hearing.<br /><br />I was amazed at the 2003 survey information cited by David at the top of this subject. In our case, the courts have ruled that "Seventh-day Adventist" is NOT considered to be a "religion" by the relevant public.<br /><br />In case you are not aware of this lawsuit, I am not surprised since no Adventist publication has dared to let it out. There was one article justifying litigation in the Review, June 2010, that amounts to "damage control" in the event any of the SDA constituency were to stumble onto the occasional news online.<br /><br />Oh, just in case you have not considered it, all SDA Church members are Plaintiffs in this case. As I write this, the Court is considering whether to arrest the pastor and one assistant for contempt of court--taking a position of using the name for conscience' sake.Walter McGillhttp://adventistry.to/CSDARPU/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-12334928275361731192009-05-22T16:00:24.697-04:002009-05-22T16:00:24.697-04:00Another option... become a citizen of the new isa...Another option... become a citizen of the new isalnd/nation of Adventistan http://adventistan.com , it's citizens will be called AdventistsAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07690418814003500108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-8637843534229942082008-12-04T17:34:00.000-05:002008-12-04T17:34:00.000-05:00I am appalled and sorely vexed by this information...I am appalled and sorely vexed by this information. While I understand due to politics there may be a need to have an officially and legally recognized name for <I>the visible organizational entity</I>, I however feel that trying to own and / or stifle the individual use of <I>the very spiritual, descriptive, personal, common, and self-identifying word Adventist</I> is an outright mockery of everything that is and should be Adventist.<BR/><BR/>I am a lifelong member of the church and as any such person should, am actively attempting to engage with those members of the community that exist outside of this beloved religious faith. Of course because I believe this to be of God, it is consequently my intention to evangelize and to grow the movement, or in other words - <I>help other people to come to also self identify as Adventist believers</I>. <BR/><BR/>Considering the issue that 44% of the American public have not even heard the name of our Christ-focused movement, I would like to point out that in this age of aversion to organized religion, as well as to labels in general, a large percentage of those who do actually come into contact with the name most likely assume a distinction between "Christian" and "Adventist". Consequently even those that are spiritually seeking, may easily dismiss and have little to no reason in thier mind to contemplate possibly identifying themselves as an Adventist, which to them might seem as if to be "INSTEAD OF" starting or continuing on a path of following Christ. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately many don't realize that the word Adventist is simply a description of a true Christ seeker / follower who is so sold out for Christ that he is living in great anticipation of being reunited with Him. In this manner, the apostle Paul himself was an Adventist: <BR/><BR/>Titus 2:13<BR/>Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; <BR/><BR/>As well as all of the saved at the end of time:<BR/><BR/>Isaiah 25:9<BR/>And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.<BR/><BR/>In otherwords as I understand it, Adventism in concept is simply to be a true expression of Christianity where Christianity has at times not really been Christianity. Let me repeat that the word Adventist is meant to describe the true spiritual ideals of Christianity and Christ's followers for all peoples in all locations and all times.<BR/><BR/>So now my question is pointed:<BR/><BR/>As people who have been called attention to Revelation 14, we have a wonderful message. We are to preach to the world community outside of our church and let them know that they have been liberated from the Babylon of earthly mediators and teachers and that now simply as basic humans with direct communion with none other than God Himself, they will find their true identity which is in Christ and which is furthermore Adventist in nature in that He desires that they wait patiently in anticipation for His soon Advent. But how can we possibly do this if at the same time we try to force and limit the very meaning and common usage of the word Adventist itself into a kind of commodity or property that a few individuals can own and dole out on some sort of limited access?<BR/><BR/>Is this not blasphemy? This can only harm the Advent cause. I am an Adventist. I am a Christian. These words describe my identity through Christ. I am by no means an Adventist®, Christian®, Christ-follower®, or New Creation®, through permission of any external religious organization utilizing the force of a governmental licensing entity. If this is the attitude and direction we want to go down, undoubtedly we will see God's Advent message and movement break free from these walls.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-18238957838633869542008-11-07T22:42:00.000-05:002008-11-07T22:42:00.000-05:00Did I kill this with my last post?Did I kill this with my last post?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14908284423644255614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-85523270072519932262008-09-27T22:25:00.000-04:002008-09-27T22:25:00.000-04:00Why is it all my typos show up 2 days later? ;)Why is it all my typos show up 2 days later? ;)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08219792922611897228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-27877488989841927532008-09-25T17:21:00.000-04:002008-09-25T17:21:00.000-04:00You are correct, there is no denomination called A...You are correct, there is no denomination called Adventist, adventist is for a group of people, generic. THE GC does have it legally trademarked, just not sure how enforceable that is.<BR/><BR/>My battle is between a group of folks that I consider good friends, who are trying to enforce denominational policy, and that same policy that I belief is wrong, and not enforceable by law, in most cases.<BR/><BR/>It is also my opinion, that a Church Pastor, should be required to have the SDA logo on his/her blog, as well as every church entity, several do not, most of our media VOP etc do not have the Church logo on and they should.<BR/><BR/>The so called Creation Seventh-day Adventist Churches biggest problem, again in my opinion, is that they are IMPERSONATING an Adventist Church. The trick people into thinking they are giving to an<BR/>Adventist Church and they are clearly not, by any standards. AND they are burning strange fires in their teachings.<BR/><BR/>I have no problem with them proclaiming what ever message they want to proclaim, but they need to use their own name, not ours.<BR/><BR/>In the past I have given domain names over to 'the brethren' on their demand, and guess what? They just let them expire for others to pick up and capitalize on the advertising dollars I have dropped to promote them. Some I have bought back like http://adventistfoods.com/<BR/><BR/>AND there are other names that i bought for 'safekeeping' and have transferred them under my own power and suggestion to the Church.<BR/><BR/>The thought of them trying to once again force me to turn over names, of sites that previous GC recommended and promoted just makes new born babies cry. I have spend a zillion hours and dollars on http://adventistforum.com/ aka http://clubadventist.com/<BR/><BR/>After seeking legal counsel, both Canadian and US, I will not transfer by force, any more domains. I DO HAVE to say, that there is one, I have, that I could be accused of cybersquatting, am not sure that was the case when I bought it.<BR/><BR/>AND to make this post longer and more boring, they have never gone after the owner of the domain name https://www.adventist.com/ and i find that just weird.<BR/><BR/>Going back to the first statement, most of the OGC of the GC are people that I know, some a long time. I have also some to realize they have bigger problems than me, and the things I do, I think I have dropped down to the nuisance level.<BR/><BR/>I am also aware, that there is few people meaner than long term adventist to other adventist. Fresh new shiny Adventist view this as being silly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08219792922611897228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-49312347335511908452008-09-24T09:41:00.000-04:002008-09-24T09:41:00.000-04:00Stan:In the same way, there's no denomination call...Stan:<BR/><BR/>In the same way, there's no denomination called "Adventist". And the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist Reform Movement and the General Association of Dividian Seventh-day Adventists exist prove that we Seventh-day Adventists don't, historically or legally, own the name "Adventist" (see Julius Nam's comment above).<BR/><BR/>Stan, I know from conversations with you that you have had some run-ins with OGC over these issues. Would you care to share your experience here?David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-85784897625047458402008-09-24T07:44:00.000-04:002008-09-24T07:44:00.000-04:00HI DavidNot sure there is a denominational called ...HI David<BR/><BR/>Not sure there is a denominational called Baptist or Lutheran<BR/><BR/>There is the Southern Baptist Convention,<BR/>Baptist Union of Western Canada<BR/><BR/>Lutheran Synod of Missouri<BR/>Evangelical Lutherans of America.<BR/><BR/>It has been emotional and spiritually devastating for some, who have given up much to join the adventist church, to be then told they can not have websites promoting adventism by using adventist in their domain name. One woman said a couple of years ago that the trauma caused her to miscarriage.<BR/><BR/>A couple of years ago Mark Bishop, an author, and SEO guy, contacted his contacts at CNN etc. to have ADRA put on the list for organizations that can help for Katrina and the horrible Tsunami. He made a website linking to ADRA and worked around the clock contacting members to grab the code off of his site to put on their blogs etc.<BR/><BR/>ADRA thanked him for that, he did it all free. Imagine how he felt when he got 'that letter' for the OGC demanding he cease and desist using that domain the helped so many people donate to ADRA. Ask him if he will ever do that again.<BR/><BR/>AND yet, at the same time, how do they stop the 'wackier folks' for misrepresenting adventism?<BR/><BR/>Tough calls...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08219792922611897228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-88113576313348426172008-09-21T10:31:00.000-04:002008-09-21T10:31:00.000-04:00Anon:I don't appreciate ad hominem attacks on my b...Anon:<BR/><BR/>I don't appreciate ad hominem attacks on my blog. Consider this your first warning.<BR/><BR/>Also, it seems to me that certain groups like Seventh-day Adventist Kinship and Adventist Today are using (capitalized) "Adventist" with problem at all.<BR/><BR/>Stan:<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that Mormons are the exceptions rather than the rule. Most believers are identified by a word that is part of the title of an organization associated with their faith (Catholic, Orthodox, Baptist).<BR/><BR/>My question in this whole thing regards the "blowback" from aggressive protection of our church's title. Do we really want to drive at the margins of our faith or organization farther away through legal bully tactics? Do we really want to stifle active lay members by making them apply for a license to use their own church's name?David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-16083336179581440682008-09-21T00:40:00.000-04:002008-09-21T00:40:00.000-04:00She is not a moron, some people will saying anythi...She is not a moron, some people will saying anything in hiding..<BR/><BR/>The Problem comes in, and this was pointed out in a recent judgement, where an Organization and it's members have the same name.<BR/><BR/>NO LDS says I'm a "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Church" they are Mormons or LDS. We however share the same name as the organization we belong to.<BR/><BR/>BTW here is an adventist blogroll registry http://adventistbloggers.com/index.php?board=2.0<BR/><BR/>I can understand not using the Church's paid for logo (used our money btw) but it would be nice to have and adventist bloggers logo, and those who use it would agree to a code of standards, it might be hard to define those.<BR/><BR/>My name is Stan Jensen<BR/>One of my Forums is www.adventistforum.com<BR/><BR/>I have viewed David as being one of the best adventist bloggers out there.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07690418814003500108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-32720494200156689342008-09-20T23:35:00.000-04:002008-09-20T23:35:00.000-04:00Dione Parker (R) is a moron. The term "adventist"...Dione Parker (R) is a moron. The term "adventist" can be used by anybody so long as it's not capitalized. I can be "an adventist" or a "non-adventist." Perhaps somebody should legally change their name to "seventh-day adventist" and see what happens.<BR/><BR/>You can also use terms like "adventisty" and "adventageous." Are they going to go after people who celebrate the season of advent who call themselves "adventists" who make "adventist" arguments that are "adventisty"?<BR/><BR/>What a doofus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-48115565322951224792008-07-30T12:08:00.000-04:002008-07-30T12:08:00.000-04:00I thought artistic use was allowed under copyright...I thought artistic use was allowed under copyright/trademark law....<BR/><BR/>That or <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans" REL="nofollow">Warhol</A> must have been way out of line.David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-14833102798173054812008-07-30T11:35:00.000-04:002008-07-30T11:35:00.000-04:00List me as well with those who fought the trademar...List me as well with those who fought the trademarked-name-of-the-church and the trademarked-name-of-the-church won. I had to remove a quasi-logo too. Sigh.Veggieburger Networkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12870052075536956964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-23046331902993513882008-07-05T13:50:00.000-04:002008-07-05T13:50:00.000-04:00Seems to me the church could trademark "Seventh-da...Seems to me the church could trademark "Seventh-day Adventist" but not the term "Adventist."<BR/><BR/>As I understand it, the church did sue SDA Kinship over trademark infringement and lost.<BR/><BR/>Such a stupid waste of time, energy, and expense!!<BR/><BR/>GaryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-45612868489777276702008-06-26T19:26:00.000-04:002008-06-26T19:26:00.000-04:00Ms. Parker,I appreciate the job you do (though I c...Ms. Parker,<BR/><BR/>I appreciate the job you do (though I certainly don't envy it!). Protecting the interests of the Adventist church with so many people like me clamoring for a piece of the Adventist pie, particularly in this internet era, is no small task, I'm sure!<BR/><BR/>I also appreciate the need to protect the church name from dilution - is the only (or best) way making "Adventist" a registered trademark?<BR/><BR/>With regards to the MySpace site, I didn't mean to suggest that content was removed from the site by church representatives directly, though content was removed, not by me, and I can only assume that it was at the behest of someone from the Adventist Church. That was after I had complied by removing the image that contained copyrighted material, as requested. <BR/><BR/>The content that was deleted by someone other than me did not contain anything with the Adventist logo or the word Adventist in it. That, in my view, is the sort of bullying that other commenters have suggested.<BR/><BR/>I am sorry to see the church use such heavy-handed methods of projecting / protecting the Adventist brand.Mr. KIMPhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17722703661524413390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-82364154479675543182008-06-24T12:28:00.000-04:002008-06-24T12:28:00.000-04:00If there's not such a group, there should be!If there's not such a group, there should be!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-61931468194761692008-06-23T11:13:00.000-04:002008-06-23T11:13:00.000-04:00To me Attorney Anon sounds like a support group fo...To me Attorney Anon sounds like a support group for recovering lawyers (AA), but that's probably just me <A HREF="http://changingminds.org/explanations/behaviors/coping/projection.htm" REL="nofollow">projecting</A>. ;)<BR/><BR/>Sherman, I appreciate your concern, and it's not my intent to make a martyr out of you on this issue. I cited your website's name change because it was the case I was aware of that illustrated the danger I was pointing out. Now that Jared has brought his case forward we can establish a pattern of this behavior. Therefore, it's not really fair to put you outfront on this issue.<BR/><BR/>Commenters, let's respect Sherman's wishes.David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-8222778789209080302008-06-23T10:12:00.000-04:002008-06-23T10:12:00.000-04:00Hello All! Attorney Anon here (I like the way that...Hello All! Attorney Anon here (I like the way that sounds...mysterious, almost like The Shadow or something....)<BR/><BR/>As I indicated, I don't practice IP law so I don't know all of the ins and outs of this subject. <BR/><BR/>Sherman, regarding your question, at common law an could possibly be held liable if it allows a group to hold itself out as a member of that entity and does nothing about it. There are all kinds of potential agency concerns that could play out differently in every one of the fifty states. <BR/><BR/>Regaring the catastrophic consequences...well as I don't know that much about IP law I don't know exactly what they could be in this case. I do know, however, that the legal system is often unforgiving. If you sit on your rights, you can easily lose them. If you allow something to which you object to continue, it and its effects can be charged to you. So, although I don't know the law in this area, the fact that so many people are running around with ministries, etc. labeled "Seventh-day Adventist" outside the control of the Church would give me the heebie-jeebies if I were with GC Counsel's office. <BR/><BR/>David your point is an excellent one. There is a balance that must be sought. One can only hope and trust that this decision was the result of much prayer and seeking God's will. If the Church did make a mistake, then let's pray that God will reveal that to be the case and the GC will have the courage to act. At the end of the day, even for lawyers, legal consequences are not and should not be our chief concern. Happily, we do have the advantage of knowing the Judge!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-11707747934262254952008-06-22T11:21:00.000-04:002008-06-22T11:21:00.000-04:00Hello dads2sons and others,I do not feel exactly c...Hello dads2sons and others,<BR/><BR/>I do not feel exactly comfortable being the posterboy for folks who have had the GC force them to change their name. I would not exactly say that the GC Legal "forced" me to change my name. They wrote me an email informing me of my site being in violation of the GC guidelines. They told me that there was a process where I could apply for the license should I so desire. Perhaps it would have gotten to the point of forcing, but I can't say that...<BR/><BR/>I didn't desire to go down that road of fighting or licensing for a few reasons so I changed the name. I figured it would be more trouble than it was worth...especially since I am essentially doing the exact same thing as before only under a different (non-denominational) name...Of course now folks can accuse me of hiding my denominational affiliation...<BR/><BR/>To answer the question about possible reimbursement for change of name, the answer is no, but to be fair it didn't get to any point, becauase as I noted above, I changed the name after the first letter because I didn't want to deal with any legal organizations, in church or outside of it...<BR/><BR/>One thing that I will say is that GC Legal gave me an extended period of time to transfer over. I was not given an immediate time frame for the change over so I was able to forward the domain. I did lose some Google ranking, but because they gave me this extended period of time, the hit was not as hard as it could have been. <BR/><BR/>I don't agree with the policy, but as far as my interaction with the GC legal, I have no complaints. My problem is with the policy and not how I was treated in the implementation of the policy...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-54327533160670859772008-06-22T01:53:00.000-04:002008-06-22T01:53:00.000-04:00A week ago, after the initial comments on this pos...A week ago, after the initial comments on this post, mom_3sons remarked to me that the topic was probably closed 8-).<BR/><BR/>I would like to add some more information and also a few more ideas:<BR/><BR/>1) For those who would like to become better informed on the legal issues regarding the interaction between intellectual property and electronic media, I would highly recommend the extensive body of writing produced over the years by Pamela Samuelson (http://www.law.berkeley.edu/faculty/profiles/<BR/>facultyProfile.php?facID=346) - note that I had to break this URL into 2 lines. Old-time Republicans who doubt whether anything good can come out of Berkeley might want to know that many consider UC-Berkeley the finest US law school west of the Mississippi.<BR/><BR/>2) A possible motivation for the OGC of GC of SDA registering trademarks on common words like Adventist and (apparently) Ministry might relate to current internet governance practices (please bear with me here if you have not previously been exposed to this topic - if you have then please forgive me for over-simplifying).<BR/><BR/>A quasi-public entity called the Internet Corporation (formerly Committee) for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) accredits and regulates internet domain name registrars.<BR/><BR/>In the early days of commercial availability of internet domain names, there was a major problem with "cyber-squatters" racing to register domain names that contained or closely mimiced commercial trademarks. The purpose was to be able to ransom them for profit either to the legitimate trademark holders or to potential competitors.<BR/><BR/>ICANN responded to the problem of "cyber-squatters" by creating a set of rules for resolving disputes over internet domain names that gives preferential treatment to holders of registered trademarks. There is a well-defined process by which trademark holders can challenge registration of closely related domain names by unauthorized parties.<BR/><BR/>More recently ICANN is coming under pressure to address the problem of "reverse cyber-squatters" that use their preferred status to unfairly deny domain names through a variety of means.<BR/><BR/>In any case if the underlying trademark is invalidated then the former trademark holder will lose their preferred status for challenging registration of closely related domain names.<BR/><BR/>3) The primary purpose for registering and/or enforcing a trademark is to protect an intangible asset called Goodwill. Goodwill is especially important for non-profit, non-commercial enterprises that depend on voluntary support.<BR/><BR/>The complementary intangible liability (impairment to Goodwill) is Illwill. I am not aware of any Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for valuation of Illwill - but it can be a very significant, even overwhelming, impairment to Goodwill.<BR/><BR/>I totally support the concept that the SDA Church must maximize Goodwill and minimize Illwill wherever possible. However it is important that attempts to protect Goodwill (eg from misrepresentation of who we are and what we teach and practice) do not themselves generate more Illwill than they seek to prevent.<BR/><BR/>Those who may doubt the significance of this concept of avoiding unnecessary Illwill in the age of instant electronic publication should carefully consider the outcomes of the Clinton vs Obama campaigns. Obama's team mastered the art of electronically maximizing Goodwill to generate the tangible assets of campaign contributions and delegates, while Clinton's campaign bogged own in Illwill and she was forced to kick in over $11 million of her (and Bill's?) money to stay in the race because her contributions dried up.<BR/><BR/>Why is this important to the SDA Church? Albeit for different purposes (I hope!) we use media extensively to help generate both contributions and converts.<BR/><BR/>In this regard it is important to understand that the same message conveyed in different media may have a different impact on the Goodwill/Illwill balance if the differences in media are not taken into account in the presentation.<BR/><BR/>Which is a long-winded way of saying that while trademark and copyright symbols may create some aura of value in the print media for which they were originally designed, in electronic media they often come across as tacky or tawdry. The result in electronic media often has the effect of devaluing the brand image (a form of Illwill). Given the growing predominance of electronic media, the norm for print media is increasingly being driven from electronic media rather than vice versa.<BR/><BR/>4) Matthew 5:14-16, 25 & 7:2, 12 contain excellent guidance for creating Goodwill and avoiding Illwill - the Golden Rule is a very concise formulation of this concept.<BR/><BR/>Especially in cyberspace simply applying the Golden Rule can avoid a lot of unnecessary Illwill. Cyberspace especially punishes the appearance of hypocrisy or over-reaching. For example we rightly teach that free speech is necessary for the free exercise of religion (to enable sharing / evangelism / etc).<BR/><BR/>If the church intervenes on the side of free speech in some cases (eg religious expression) while acting to suppress free speech in other cases (eg publishing a trademarked symbol for purposes of editorial comment) how does this affect the Goodwill/Illwill balance?<BR/><BR/>A time-proven method of defending a trademark while avoiding unnecessary Illwill directly applies the Golden Rule. Many businesses enhance the value of their trademarks by offering to buy-out closely-related names that through no hostile intention of the original user, nevertheless could impair the brand. Many small users will willingly move from the contested name space if their cost of conversion is reimubursed. The result is Goodwill rather than Illwill.<BR/><BR/>In their letter to Sherman Cox II did the OGC of GC of SDA offer to reimburse his direct costs for changing his doamin name?<BR/><BR/>5) Mark 9:38-40 contains a very interesting precedent regarding trademark infringement and Goodwill.<BR/><BR/>"And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out demons in your name, and he does not follow us. And we forbade him because he does not follow us."<BR/><BR/>"But Jesus said, Do not forbid him. For there is no one who shall do a work of power in My name who can lightly speak evil of Me."<BR/><BR/>"For he who is not against us is for us."<BR/><BR/>(cf Modern King James Version which is published on the web and can be downloaded free-of-charge)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-71726346690870829802008-06-21T22:21:00.000-04:002008-06-21T22:21:00.000-04:00Lawyer Anon:I haven't heard potential lawsuits as ...Lawyer Anon:<BR/><BR/>I haven't heard potential lawsuits as the rationale for this trademarking yet. Is it possible to sue an organization for what a totally unrelated organization does under the same name?<BR/><BR/>You have rightly said that the church and the legal world work in separate worlds. But as a pastor, I see one thing I have in common with lawyers: we are both involved in the interpretation of texts. And I also realize that from a practical point of view, how the text is interpreted is more important than what is written.<BR/><BR/>The problem comes when the interests of lawyers in arguing for their interpretation conflict with the interests pastors and lay people who have to deal with the broader consequences of decisions made from a legal perspective. I realize that our Office of General Counsel is intent of building the strongest possible case for claiming our name and logo. The problem comes when building this case comes at the expense of our church's public image.<BR/><BR/>How does this cost our public image. Commenters have pointed out the following:<BR/><BR/>1. The ® makes our church look commercialized.<BR/>2. Trade marking the name "Adventist" makes our church look like it's opposed to free speech and historically disingenuous.<BR/>3. Asking internet ministries to get a license to use the name "Adventist" discourages their outreach.<BR/><BR/>There has to be some kind of compromise between the concerns of lawyers and the concerns of those who are carrying forward the mission of the company. The problem with protectionist ideologies is that they ultimately compromise that which they are seeking to protect. If protecting the churches name is our ultimate goal, we will end up with a fossil; and I worry this ® policy is one more step in the process of petrification.<BR/><BR/>I have pointed out that successful companies do not always have to display the ® symbol with their products. This would be an example of such a compromise. Not claiming exclusive rights the name Adventist would be another.<BR/><BR/>From a pastoral perspective I have another question: Do we trust God to look after our reputation as we carry forward our mission? The world's courts cannot ultimately guarantee the integrity of our name. Let's put our trust in the Judge who promised that "My people will never be put to shame" (Joel 2:27).David Hamstrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00918076742603923375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-59101605169614067002008-06-20T12:16:00.000-04:002008-06-20T12:16:00.000-04:00Lawyer Anonymous,Yours is an interesting perspecti...Lawyer Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Yours is an interesting perspective in that you certainly know more law than I know...My question to you is: What are the "catastrophic legal consequences" of not having the trademark? <BR/><BR/>Could the GC be legally liable for the work and actions of independent groups that carry the name "Adventist" but are not connected to the "Adventist" church? Are we pursuing this policy for fear of legal consequences or because we don't want the church's name used to promote things that we find objectionable?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-48078938871946720022008-06-20T10:37:00.000-04:002008-06-20T10:37:00.000-04:00Hello Everyone:I am an attorney and an Adventist. ...Hello Everyone:<BR/>I am an attorney and an Adventist. What I know about IP law you could write on a matchbook cover. <BR/><BR/>However, I do know this: Just quoting statutes is usually of little value. Those statutes have been interpreted and applied by courts. Unless you know the statutes and the case law that accompanies them, it is really impossible to apply the law to a given set of facts. (To complicate things even more, statutes have often been interpreted differently by different regional federal courts, called "Circuit Courts." So a given statute may be interpreted differently in different parts of the Country.) <BR/><BR/>So, it seems to me that the safest and surest way to prevent the sue of the Church's name in ways that would hurt the Church is to do what the GC has done, however distasteful it may seem. <BR/><BR/>The legal system is so very different from the world that the Church operates in that it is probably impossible to reconcile the two completely. What I mean by this is that protecting the Church in a legal sense will necessitate actions that some will find distasteful. But failing to carry them out could, and probably will, have catastrophic legal consequences.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13738853.post-23765967884943179392008-06-19T20:38:00.000-04:002008-06-19T20:38:00.000-04:00David,Thanks for the link. I find it difficult to...David,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the link. I find it difficult to interpret this article in light of the fact that it appears from the article that trademark law was meant to keep people from infringing on the ability of the trademark holder from making money on the trademark.<BR/><BR/>However, in this case it appears that the church's intention for getting the trademark is not to ensure its ability to make money, but to keep people who the church finds problematic from using the trademark...<BR/><BR/>Has the trademark law been used in this way by any other church? Does anyone know?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com