Yay my first Scientology legal threat! Must be PTS, onto SP!

Forum Index | Disclaimer | Forum Rules

Large Group Awareness Training, "Human Potential"

Go to Topic: Previous•Next

Go to: Forum List•Message List•New Topic•Search•Log In•Print View

Pages: 12 Next

Current Page: 1 of 2

Yay my first Scientology legal threat! Must be PTS, onto SP!

Posted by: $cienTomogy ()

Date: September 14, 2005 04:11AM

Here's the email (FYI I am based in New Zealand);

From: AMPaquette@aol.com [mailto:AMPaquette@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 14 September 2005 6:24 a.m.
To: info@scientomogy.info
Subject: Unauthorized Use of Registered Trademark

Dear Mr. [Scientomogy]:

Our office represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of
the federally registered trademark and service mark "SCIENTOLOGY". The
"SCIENTOLOGY" mark is registered with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office under registration numbers 1,755,441; 1,540,928; 1,342,353;
1,329,474; 1,318,717; 1,306,997; and 0898018. "SCIENTOLOGY" is also registered
as a trade and service mark in numerous countries throughout the world,
including New Zealand under registration numbers B 119,381; 153,974; 180,601;
B 153,085; B 153,086; 180600. We also represent the Church of Scientology
International ("CSI"), which is the licensee of the "Scientology" trademark.

We have been advised that you have registered a domain name with
Enom, Inc., a United States domain registrar and agreed, through Enom's
Registration Agreement, Governing Law and Jurisdiction for Disputes, to submit
to the jurisdiction of Bellevue, Washington, regarding the following domain
name:

"Scientomogy.info"

You are hereby on notice that the registration and use of this domain name
in this fashion has caused your name to be falsely associated with our client's
registered mark, SCIENTOLOGY, as owner and creates a likelihood of confusion
as to the source or sponsorship of this domain name in violation of United States
state and federal law, including the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a).

The fact that you have changed one letter (" m" instead of "l") does not
protect you from trademark infringement. Huish Detergents, Inc. v. Orange Glo
Intern, Inc., 2002 WL 32157171 (D.Utah 2002) (holding that minor differences in
spelling and variations and arrangements of letters was insufficient to protect
against trademark infringement); Salton, Inc. v. Cornwall Corporation, 477 F.Supp.
975 (D.C.N.J. 1979) (holding that, even though not completely identical,
defendant's term was so like the plaintiff's in form, spelling, and sound as to
constitute trademark infringement). The adoption of the term "Scientomogy" is
so like the federally registered trademark "Scientology" in form, spelling and
sound as to constitute infringement pursuant to the Lanham TradeMark Act, 15
U.S.C. 1114. AMF v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979); G.D. Searle &
Company v. Chas. Pfizer & Company, 265 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1959).

Likewise, our client's registered trademark is famous, distinctive and
unique. Registering and using the Scientology mark in this manner dilutes and
tarnishes the distinctiveness of the mark in violation of the federal trademark
antidilution statute, 15 U.S.C. 1125(c) and California's antidilution statute,
California Bus. & Prof. Code 14330. See, Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Internet
Entertainment Group, Inc., 34 F.Supp.2d 1145 (E.D. Mo. 1999); Mattel, Inc. v.
Internet dimensions, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Deere & Co. v. MTD
Products, Inc., 41 F.3d 39, 43 (2nd Cir. 1994); Century 21 Real Estate Corporation v.
Sandlin, 846 F.2d 1175 (9th Cir. 1988); Grey v. Campbell Soup Company, 650 F.Supp.
1166 (D.C. Cal. 1986).

Your use of our client's mark in this manner also constitutes an unlawful
false designation of origin and as such, violates 43(a) of the Lanham Trade-
Mark Act. This prohibits any use of another's trademarks that is "likely to cause
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or
association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship,
or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another
person." America Online, Inc. v. IMS, 24 F.Supp.2d 548, 551 (E.D.Va. 1998).

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") is also
implicated by your registration and attempted sale of this domain name. Shields
v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3rd Cit. 2001). Statutory damages can be awarded for
violation of the Act in an amount not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000
for each domain name. 15 U.S.C. Section 1117(d). The court in Shields imposed a
$30,000 statutory damage award against a cybersquatter under the Act.

Moreover, trademark rights subsist in New Zealand in our client's
trademarks by virtue of the Paris Convention (to which New Zealand and the
United States are signatories) which provides that United States citizens shall be
given the same treatment in New Zealand with regard to trademark protection as
that available to citizens of New Zealand.

Accordingly, we ask that you cease and desist use of this domain name
and transfer it to our client, CSI. We are willing to pay for your registration and
transfer fees incurred in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Ava Paquette
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: (213) 487-4468
Fax: (213) 487-5385

Options: Reply•Quote