http://www.chillingeffects.org/trademark/notice.cgi?NoticeID=1568

(Page includes a number of links in the text.)

I got a *huge* laugh out of them mentioning that hidden text (search engine food) is "what is now considered spam". Gee, like the search engines never booted Scientology's ass for all the hidden text and meta tags that they used!

Sender Information: Religious Technology Center Sent by: [Private] Moxon & Kobrin 3055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles,, California, 90010, USA

Recipient Information: [Private] International Freezone Association 12345, Panama

Sent via: To host via email Re:

Our office represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the following registered trademark and service marks:

1. SCIENTOLOGY: 1,775,441; 1,540,928; 1,342, 353; 1,329,474; 1,318,717; 1,306,997; 898018

2. DIANETICS: 1,432,039;1,366,410; 1,347,651

3. CIENCIOLOGIA: 1045563.

4. HUBBARD: 1,546,167; 1,734,728; 1,318,637; 1,505,349

5. L. RON HUBBARD: 1,821,751

6. SCIENTOLOGIA: 1018178

7. SZCIENTOLOGIA: 132028

8. SCIENTOLOGIE: 2745/BUR; 340072; 210,281; 92,443,533; 1,284,885; 232 REG 100; 00599; 90.12995; 3637/ERK; 410,139; 372667.

RTC is also the owner of the collective membership trademark "Scientologist". The collective membership mark "Scientologist" is famous, distinctive and unique and is used to identify parishioners who are in good standing in the Scientology religion. We also represent the Church of Scientology International ("CSI"), which is the licensee of these trade and service marks.

Both CSI and RTC are non-profit religious organizations. CSI and its sub-licensees use these marks in connection with providing religious and humanitarian services and counseling, seminars, books, classes, and lectures, among others. These marks are also used extensively on the Internet. For example, many of these products, including a great number of books of the Scientology religion and services are promoted through various web sites, including "scientology.org", "dianetics.org", etc.

We have been advised that one of your subscribers is using these marks on his EV1's webpage under the domain name - "www.internationalfreezone.net". He is using our client's marks, "Scientology" and "Scientologists" in the headings on each webpage, including the heading, "A Scientology Organization of Independent Scientologists"; he is using them as hidden text at the top of each of his webpages (what is now considered spam); as well as using all of the above-listed marks as metatags on each page.

Please be on notice that the use of our client's marks in this fashion has caused this subscriber's name to be falsely associated with our client's marks as owner and creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of these webpages and the products he is advertising in violation of United States state and federal law, including the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a). Moreover, the deceptive use of our client's trademark as metatags in order to lure an Internet surfer to these webpages constitutes impermissible trademark infringement. Victoria's Secret Stores v. Aratco Equipment Co., Inc., 194 F.Supp.2d 704 (S.D. Ohio 2002).

Likewise, our client's trademarks are famous, distinctive and unique. The use of the marks in this manner dilutes and tarnishes the distinctiveness of the marks 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, Kraft Foods Holding, Inc. V. Helm, 205 F.Supp.2d 942 (N.D. Ill 2002); Victoria's Cyber Secret Limited Partnership v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 161 F.Supp.2d 1339 (S.D. Fla. 2001); Mattel, Inc. v. Internet dimensions, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1620 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

The use of our client's marks 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). See also, Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. v. Muller, 2004 WL 792735 (D.Nev. March 29, 2004) (permanent injunction issued where court held that a "defendant's knowing adoption of a mark similar to plaintiff's raises a presumption of confusion"); Louis Vuitton Malletier and Oakley, Inc. v. Veit, 211 F.Supp.2d 567 (E.D. Pa. 2002) (where court issued permanent injunction finding that "false and/or misleading descriptions or representations, tending to falsely misleadingly describe and/or represent defendant's products as those of trademark owner" violated § 43(a) of the Lanham Act); People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney, 263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2001) (defendant held liable for trademark infringement for using another's registered trademark in domain name for purpose of diverting Internet users to infringer's web site).

Accordingly, we ask your help in removing our client's trademarks from these webpages.

Sincerely, [private] Moxon & Kobrin 3055 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90010 [private]

<p><hr><p> From: dst@cs.cmu.edu (Dave Touretzky)
Subject: Re: Chilling Effects: RTC Notices Another
Date: 3 Jan 2005 14:45:17 -0500
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Message-ID: <41d9a0cd$1@news2.lightlink.com>

This is not a church vs. business issue. It's a trademark and unfair competition issue.

The Freezone is in direct competition with the Church of Scientology, Inc. It sells competing services, at lower prices, to the same market. It holds itself out to the public as an alternative to Scientology(tm)-brand spiritual counseling.

As I see it, this raises two legal issues:

First, under what circumstances can a company legally use a competitor's trademark in its advertising? I believe the courts have held that competitors' trademarks can be used in a manner that does not cause confusion. So, for example, a company cannot create an impression that its product *is* the trademarked product. But it can refer to a trademarked product by name when comparing it to its own product. That's why RC Cola could run ads saying "our stuff is cheaper than Coke and Pepsi".

The second legal issue is whether "Scientology" is still a legitimate trademark, or whether, as a result of widespread generic use, it has entered the public domain. No one ever talks about "Scientology brand" religious counseling; it's always just "Scientology". And anyone who follows Hubbard's teachings is a Scientologist, whether or not they are in good standing with CoS Inc.

I think the Freezone folks could easily win on the first point (fair use of trademarks), and could at least make a strong argument on the second. Of course, that presupposes that they would have the resources to defend themselves in court. No one thinks they do.

-- Dave Touretzky: "Scientology: it's a generic term AND a trademark!" http://ScientologyWatch.org

Go Back