Conversation With Ms. Parker - Gc Legal Dept. Options

[calvin]

I spoke with Dionne A. Parker from the GC legal dept last week. She was able to clear up some things, especially about the solicitation for funds with a Pay Pal button. She admitted that that was a mistake on their part to request me to remove it.

Concerning the License application: She explained that they had every intention of submitting the BlackSDA application for SDA trademark use. I submitted my license application in February but the committee did not meet until late July. My license along with other websites where to be considered by the committee. Ms. Parker received notice that the meeting was to take place that very day. She took a quick look at the BSDA website saw the banner ads and pulled our application. It was incidental that I had started running ads two weeks before the GC meeting was to take place for.

Banners Ads: The problem with banners ads is that the Church could jeopardize its non-profit status with advertisements. They also claim that they have common law rights to “SDA” since the acronym has been used as an identifying mark for Seventh-day Adventist since 1861. She confirmed that they do not have a trademark on “SDA”, however “Adventist” and Seventh-day Adventist are trademarks of the Church.

BSDA Content: She indicated that the Church does not have any issues with our discussions whether pro or con the Church. I particularly ask about the 3ABN discussions, no issues with our discussions either.

Clay, Princessdi and a few other trusted members had a conference call last week to discuss the direction for BSDA. Upon my recommendation we decided to keep the name BlackSDA and continue with the license application. I also told Ms. Parker that I know of two official Adventist sites that do sell banner ads; they are Adventist Review (Partners) and Plusline.org an official website of the NAD. I plan to send an email to her today with the links and post the email here.

I think we have more to gain with an official recognition from the Church, I could be wrong but that is how I feel. I don’t want to get into an antagonistic environment with the church, certainly if we don’t have too. We will not be making any non-denominational claims here. Several of you have offered assistance with letters to GC and such and I appreciate your concern and willingness to help. But I request that you allow me to continue the dialogue and see if we can reach an agreement on the banner ads that I can live with.

Thank you for all your support.

[princessdi]

Well done, Calvin! That's why you are our Fearless Leader!

[Johann]

Well done, Calvin! That's why you are our Fearless Leader!

I support you in supporting Calvin on this issue. Seems decent and in order.

[lurker]

I agree that official recognition of this site would be a good thing. The GC has much to gain by recognizing this discussion forum. Discussions are always taking place among church members anyway about the various subjects we cover and they will show up on the internet somewhere. This is a good place to keep one's finger on the pulse of the church so to speak. We say it as we see it.

That the church can allow arguments for many differing outlooks on the Adventist lifestyle and happenings speaks well of it. Calvin is fair and open minded in my opinion and what he allows shows that generally SDAs have enough confidence in the church organization that we are not afraid to speak freely and that we have a voice. He also keeps us in check whe we get upset with each other or too outspoken.

[PeacefulBe]

Clay, Princessdi and a few other trusted members had a conference call last week to discuss the direction for BSDA. Upon my recommendation we decided to keep the name BlackSDA and continue with the license application. I also told Ms. Parker that I know of two official Adventist sites that do sell banner ads; they are Adventist Review (Partners) and Plusline.org an official website of the NAD. I plan to send an email to her today with the links and post the email here.

I think we have more to gain with an official recognition from the Church, I could be wrong but that is how I feel. I don’t want to get into an antagonistic environment with the church, certainly if we don’t have too. We will not be making any non-denominational claims here. Several of you have offered assistance with letters to GC and such and I appreciate your concern and willingness to help. But I request that you allow me to continue the dialogue and see if we can reach an agreement on the banner ads that I can live with.

Thank you for all your support.

Calvin,

I'm so glad to hear that this was not as first feared! I know that must cheer your heart and lift the burden of disappointment you felt over the apparent stance our denomination was taking against BlackSDA.com.

You have my full support in your decision to continue to seek official recognition for your ministry from the Church. I will only watch and pray that the process moves forward properly. You can let me know if and when I need to send any note or fresh-baked cookies to Ms. Parker.

PB

[Artiste]

I spoke with Dionne A. Parker from the GC legal dept last week. She was able to clear up some things, especially about the solicitation for funds with a Pay Pal button. She admitted that that was a mistake on their part to request me to remove it.

Concerning the License application: She explained that they had every intention of submitting the BlackSDA application for SDA trademark use. I submitted my license application in February but the committee did not meet until late July. My license along with other websites where to be considered by the committee. Ms. Parker received notice that the meeting was to take place that very day. She took a quick look at the BSDA website saw the banner ads and pulled our application. It was incidental that I had started running ads two weeks before the GC meeting was to take place for.

Banners Ads: The problem with banners ads is that the Church could jeopardize its non-profit status with advertisements. They also claim that they have common law rights to “SDA” since the acronym has been used as an identifying mark for Seventh-day Adventist since 1861. She confirmed that they do not have a trademark on “SDA”, however “Adventist” and Seventh-day Adventist are trademarks of the Church.

BSDA Content: She indicated that the Church does not have any issues with our discussions whether pro or con the Church. I particularly ask about the 3ABN discussions, no issues with our discussions either.

Clay, Princessdi and a few other trusted members had a conference call last week to discuss the direction for BSDA. Upon my recommendation we decided to keep the name BlackSDA and continue with the license application. I also told Ms. Parker that I know of two official Adventist sites that do sell banner ads; they are Adventist Review (Partners) and Plusline.org an official website of the NAD. I plan to send an email to her today with the links and post the email here.

I think we have more to gain with an official recognition from the Church, I could be wrong but that is how I feel. I don’t want to get into an antagonistic environment with the church, certainly if we don’t have too. We will not be making any non-denominational claims here. Several of you have offered assistance with letters to GC and such and I appreciate your concern and willingness to help. But I request that you allow me to continue the dialogue and see if we can reach an agreement on the banner ads that I can live with.

Thank you for all your support.

Calvin, I do not see an explanation of why you were requested to change the site name if the only problem was a "quick look" that took note of the banner ads. The reasonable thing in that case would have been to notify you that compliance could be gained if you simply removed the banners. Instead, it is my understanding that you were asked to change the name of BlackSDA.

*****************************************************************

[Denny]

Nice one!

[Pickle]

Banners Ads: The problem with banners ads is that the Church could jeopardize its non-profit status with advertisements.

I take this to mean that if the Church does not clamp down on every use of its trademark or common law marks by those that are not under denominational control, that they could lose their non-profit status. I'm not an attorney, so I can't evaluate that.

But from what I have read in Appeals Court cases regarding trademark disputes over domain names, I seem to recall a judge saying that if there is no commerce involved, the Lanham Act does not apply.

In other words, only if there is advertising or goods for sale or some such thing does the Lanham Act (the statute that prohibits trademark infringement) apply. So without any sort of commerce going on, I wonder what the grounds might be for requiring a license to use the mark in question.

[Noahswife]

But from what I have read in Appeals Court cases regarding trademark disputes over domain names, I seem to recall a judge saying that if there is no commerce involved, the Lanham Act does not apply.

The case of The Taubman Company v Webfeat, a Texas Company and Henry Miskoff, an individual was decided by the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. For those so inclined, it is a relatively brief discussion and analysis of the Lanham Act not only as to the question of a website being commercial in nature but also if use of the domain name that was claimed to be a trademark violation was also likely to result in confusion among customers. There is even an interesting discussion about "complaint sites" where it is alleged the intent was to harm the mark holder economically.

We find that Mishkoff's use of Taubman's mark in the domain name "taubmansucks.com" is purely an exhibition of Free Speech, and the Lanham Act is not invoked. And although economic damage might be an intended effect of Mishkoff's expression, the First Amendment protects critical commentary when there is no confusion as to source, even when it involves the criticism of a business. Such use is not subject to scrutiny under the Lanham Act. In fact, Taubman concedes that Mishkoff is "free to shout 'Taubman Sucks!' from the rooftops. . . ." Brief for Respondent, at 58. Essentially, this is what he has done in his domain name. The rooftops of our past have evolved into the internet domain names of our present. We find that the domain name is a type of public expression, no different in scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and Mishkoff has a First Amendment right to express his opinion about Taubman, and as long as his speech is not commercially misleading, the Lanham Act cannot be summoned to prevent it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...amp;no=03a0043p

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Aug 30 2007, 08:56 PM

[PeacefulBe]

This decision sounds as if it could apply to other than the trademark issue with BlackSDA.com as well!

...the First Amendment protects critical commentary when there is no confusion as to source, even when it involves the criticism of a business.

[Johann]

This decision sounds as if it could apply to other than the trademark issue with BlackSDA.com as well!

Doesn't this then also apply to the Joy/Pickle case?

[PeacefulBe]

Doesn't this then also apply to the Joy/Pickle case?

Seems like it would to me, Johann. But I am not a person with much legal savvy.

[Pickle]

Seems like it would to me, Johann. But I am not a person with much legal savvy.

Check out http://www.Save3ABN.com/danny-shelton-corr...ld-duffy-01.htm and you will see that Save3ABN.com cites Taubman and points out the very thing that NW has pointed out. It's been there since February, I think.

Thus, unless Duffy and company forgot to read that page (a page they included the first two pages of as Attachment 1 of their memorandum making a case for impoundment), they knew before the lawsuit was even filed that their was a possible problem going after a non-commercial site for trademark infringement.

[PeacefulBe]

Check out http://www.Save3ABN.com/danny-shelton-corr...ld-duffy-01.htm and you will see that Save3ABN.com cites Taubman and points out the very thing that NW has pointed out. It's been there since February, I think.

Thus, unless Duffy and company forgot to read that page (a page they included the first two pages of as Attachment 1 of their memorandum making a case for impoundment), they knew before the lawsuit was even filed that their was a possible problem going after a non-commercial site for trademark infringement.

I knew it sounded familiar, LOL! Well, a lot has been written and read since February so it's no wonder that I forgot about seeing it there.