First Independent Church of Scientology

Discussion in 'Freezone, Independents, and Other Flavors of Scien' started by CommunicatorIC, Jan 21, 2016.

View Users: View Users
  1. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    The First Independent Church of Scientology has responded to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Non-Final Office Actions that tentatively denied both Trademark applications.

    With respect to the text-only mark, the First Independent Church of Scientology's written argument can found at:

    https://tsdrsec.uspto.gov/ts/cd/pdf...092037052-20160919141534895855_._Response.pdf

    With respect to the text only-mark, the First Independent Church of Scientology's complete response, including exhibits, can be found at:

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86817837&docId=ROA20160920174138#docIndex=1&page=1

    With respect to the text-only mark, the USPTO's Trademark Snap Shot Amendment & Mail Processing Stylesheet can be found at:

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86817837&docId=AMC20160921054917#docIndex=0&page=1

    USTPO page for all First Independent Church of Scientology text-only trademark application information:

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86817837&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

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

    With respect to the graphic mark, the First Independent Church of Scientology's written argument can be found at:

    https://tsdrsec.uspto.gov/ts/cd/pdf...092037052-20160919133716908652_._Response.pdf

    With respect to the graphic mark, the First Independent Church of Scientology's complete response, including exhibits, can be found at:

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86905517&docId=ROA20160920172205#docIndex=1&page=1

    With respect to the graphic mark, the USPTO's Trademark Snap Shot Amendment & Mail Processing Stylesheet can be found at:

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86905517&docId=AMC20160921060857#docIndex=0&page=1

    USTPO page for all First Independent Church of Scientology graphic trademark application information:

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86905517&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2016
  2. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    They put a lot of work into that response. I'm impressed.

    Paul
     
  3. uncover

    uncover Gold Meritorious Patron

    So can you make a short summary, please ? :eyeroll:
     
  4. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    There are lots of PDF pages. I found the format unreadable until I had zoomed out my browser (Ctrl -) to show the page size at 80% or 90% instead of my usual 100%.

    From memory . . . the first few PDFs are copies of CofS websites. There are some PDFs of different non-Scn sites showing the use of "Scientology" as a generic term, like maybe this one (http://coffeeforums.co.uk/showthread.php?7977-Bulletproof-Coffee) which uses the phrase "Is this the scientology of coffee?"

    There's a thorough write-up on two or more points, showing (1) how "First Independent Church of Scientology" has the words "First" and "Independent" in it, and people who would be interested in getting their Scientology from one or the other would be intelligent and educated enough to be able to differentiate between the two entities, as opposed to average or worse peeps. And (2) pointing out that "Scientology" has become a generic term because of a few obscure data points like someone saying "the scientology of coffee".

    I'm probably doing them an injustice to summarise (I assume) hundreds of hours of careful work as sloppily as I have done, but there you go. There may be more points even, but I didn't spend long at it at all.

    Of those two points, I think the generic claim won't go anywhere if it's no more than I have described. That point about the only peeps likely to be interested in obtaining Scn services would be intelligent enough to know whether they are interacting with the original cult or an independent cult would seem to have a bit more going for it. In my opinion.

    Paul
     
  5. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    The best places to start are the First Independent Church of Scientology's written responses. The rest of the documents are only exhibits of evidence in support of the written responses.

    With respect to the text-only mark, the First Independent Church of Scientology's written argument can found at:

    https://tsdrsec.uspto.gov/ts/cd/pdfs...._Response.pdf

    With respect to the graphic mark, the First Independent Church of Scientology's written argument, which is largely but not entirely redundant of the text-only response, can be found at:

    https://tsdrsec.uspto.gov/ts/cd/pdf...092037052-20160919133716908652_._Response.pdf

    I suggest you start with the first written response above, concerning the text-only mark. That will give you the gist of their argument.
     
  6. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    First Independent Church of Scientology argues term Scientology not trademarkable

    First Independent Church of Scientology argues, "The Term "Scientology" Has Become a Generic Term and Therefore is Not Entitled To a Trademark Protection."

    Written response by First Independent Church of Scientology to USPTO Non-Final Office Action Tentatively Denying Application For Text-Only Trademark.


    Among things, the First Independent Church of Scientology argues that, "C. The Term "Scientology" Has Become a Generic Term and Therefore is Not Entitled To a Trademark Protection."

    https://tsdrsec.uspto.gov/ts/cd/pdf...092037052-20160919141534895855_._Response.pdf

    First Independent Church of Scientology (79176)

    I. Section 2(d) Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion

    Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4674470, 4533003, 2717563, 2678135, 1342353, 1329474, 1318717, 1306997, 1540928, and 0898018. In view of the following arguments and remarks, applicant respectfully requests that applicant's mark be approved for registration.

    A. Cited Marks are Different In Appearance, Sound, Connotation and Commercial Impression From Applicant's Mark.

    Marks must be viewed as a whole in assessing whether there would be a likelihood of confusion. First, applicant's mark consists of five different words "First," "Independent," "Church," "Of," and "Scientology." Most of the cited marks (except "Scientology Volunteer Minister" and "International Scientology News") consist of a single word "Scientology." The prominent and distinctive portion of the applicant's mark is the word "Independent," which is the
    second word in the mark versus "Scientology," which is the fifth and last word of the mark. This prominent and distinctive portion of the applicant's mark, "independent" has a commonly known meaning of:
    a (1) : not subject to control by others :self-governing (2) :not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore>b (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3). not bound by or committed to a political party c (1) : not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood).
    Merriam-Webster Dictionary. See, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/independent


    "Not being subject to control, or affiliated with others," "not requiring or relying on something else," or "not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct," create a significantly different appearance, meaning and commercial impression that merely the terms
    (cited marks) "Scientology," "Scientology Volunteer Minister," and "International Scientology News." In fact, the term "independent" as the prominent term of the applicant's mark makes it clear that the services provided under applicant's mark are not related or affiliated with those
    provided under the cited marks.\

    Therefore, applicant's mark is significantly different in appearance, meaning and commercial impression from the cited registered marks.\

    Second, the addition of the other two words "First" and "Church" in the five-word applicant's mark of "First Independent Church of Scientology" provides a different commercial impression than the cited marks. There are many known marks, which include the distinctive word "First" to distinguish them over other marks or generic names, such as "First Foundation Trust," "First Foundation Advisors," "First Foundation," "First Foundation Bank," "Consumer
    First," "First Market Capital," "First Aid," etc.. Accordingly, the addition of the particular word "First" (in addition to the distinctive word "Independent") to many marks or generic names, operates to significantly differentiate between them.

    As a result, applicant's mark is significantly different in appearance, meaning and commercial impression from the cited registered marks.

    B. Sophisticated Relevant Buyers of Applicant's Services Are Less Likely to be Confused by Registrant's Marks.

    The consumers of both applicant's services and the services of registrant are professionals, celebrities, prominent business owners and educated individuals who are sophisticated and are familiar with the service providers of such services nation-wide. Most of these sophisticated consumers are repeat customers and are closely familiar with various service providers in self-fulfillment, spiritual, ministerial industries. Since applicant's mark prominently
    includes the term "Independent," which stands for "Not being subject to control, or affiliated with others," "not requiring or relying on something else," or "not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct, such sophisticated consumers would readily recognize that the source of goods and services for the applicant's mark is not the same as those of the registrant's.

    As Professor McCarthy so appropriately stated (J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks, §23:101) "[m]any cases state that where the relevant buyer class is composed of professionals or commercial buyers familiar with the field, they are sophisticated enough to not be confused by trademarks that are closely similar. That is, it is assumed that such professional buyers are less likely to be confused than the ordinary consumer." Thus, while two marks might be sufficiently similar to confuse an ordinary consumer, a professional buyer or an expert in the field may be more knowledgeable and will not be confused. (See, for example, Arrow Fastener Co. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d. 384 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1449 (2nd Cir. 1995), where knowledgeable buyer of defendant's $400 pneumatic stapler gun used for building construction and furniture manufacture is sophisticated and not likely to be confused with defendant's model number; and CMM Cable Rep. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc. 888 F. Supp. 192, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1458 (D. Me. 1995), aff'd,97 F.3d 1054, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d (1st Cir. 1996), where sophisticated professional buyers "are less likely to be confused as to the source of origin of a product than ordinary
    consumers of inexpensive foods or services"; summary of judgment of no likelihood of confusion of radio station executives.

    Here, like any of the above cases, relevant buyers of registrant's services are professionals, celebrities, prominent business owners and educated individuals, who are more knowledgeable than ordinary consumers and thus will not be confused by applicant's use and registration of "First Independent Church of Scientology" for spiritual ministry services.

    In short, considering differences in appearance, meaning and commercial impression of the marks and the sophistication of the relevant class of consumers of the services, no likelihood of confusion would arise as a result of applicant's use and registration of the trademark of "First Independent Church of Scientology" for spiritual ministry services.

    C. The Term "Scientology" Has Become a Generic Term and Therefore is Not Entitled To a Trademark Protection.

    “A generic or common descriptive term is one which is commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods.” Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 561 F.2d 75, 79. “The critical issue in genericness cases is whether members of the relevant public primarily use or understand the term sought to be protected to refer to the genus of goods or services in question.” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re America Online Inc., 77 USPQ 2d. 1618, 1622 (TTAB 2006). Trademarks act as source-identifiers; their purpose is to distinctly point out the source of the goods. In re Taylor & Francis Publishers, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1213, 1215 (T.T.A.B. 2000) (holding that "a generic entity designation [] is incapable of serving a source-indicating function"); TMEP § 1209.03(d) (same).

    Here, for example, in a book (Exhibit A, [1]) written in the year 1910 (way before the term "scientology" was coined by the registrant, Religious Technology Center Corporation), the term "scientology" was used generically all over the book as a "quasi science" related to study or investigation of knowledge, or epistemology.

    Registrant's own website defines scientology (without any trademark notice) as literally meaning "knowing how to know," or epistemology (Exhibit A, [2]). This word has now become generic for religious services including "Religious and Ministerial Services Including pastoral Counseling." (See, the cited Registration No. 1318717).

    Additionally, another registrant's own website ("scientology.org") (Exhibit A, [3]), uses numerous headers including the word scientology generically and without any trademark notice. For example, “Scientology Video Channel”, “Scientology Newsroom”, “What is Scientology?”, “Scientology Today”, “Inside a church of Scientology”, “New Churches of Scientology”, “Meet a Scientologist”, “Scientology Today”, “Ideal Saint Hill Inauguration Crowns Extraordinary
    Scientology Season of Expansion”, “What is the Concept of God in Scientology?”, “David Miscavige - Scientology’s Ecclesiastical Leader”, “The Scientology Bridge to Total Freedom”, “Scientology Beliefs and Practices", etc. If Scientology is supposed to be an adjective, they could talk about Scientology processing, or something like that. There are two references to “the Scientology religion”, but there is also a statement that “Scientology is a religion …”. The word Scientology is mostly used as a generic noun.

    In this main website, the word Scientology and Scientologist are shown in the same font as the surrounding text, do not stand out and lack any trademark notices.

    Accordingly, the members of the relevant public primarily visiting registrant's website understand the terms Scientology and Scientologist refer to the genus of services for "Religious and Ministerial [and spiritual] Services," and not the specific services or goods provided by the registrant.

    Generic terms are in the public domain and should be free for all to use.1 As the U.S. Supreme Court stated: “Sharing in the goodwill of an article unprotected by patent or trademark is the exercise of a right possessed by all—and in the free exercise of which the consuming public is deeply interested.”2 To grant an exclusive right to one firm of use of the generic name of a product would be equivalent to creating a monopoly in that particular product, something that the trademark laws were never intended to accomplish3. Judge Friendly remarked that to permit exclusive trademark rights in a generic name “would grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are.”4

    Registrant consistently refers to scientology as a religion. See, for example, Exhibit A
    [1] and [2]:

    http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-practice-of-scientology.html
    Within the vast amount of data which makes up Scientology’s religious beliefs and
    practices there are many principles which, when learned, give one a new and broader
    view of life.

    Here, to grant an exclusive right to registrant for use of the generic name of a religion would be equivalent to creating a monopoly in that particular religion, which is also against the First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion.

    Over time, a myriad of terms were held to be generic and unprotectable as valid marks. For example, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE (for a religious organization following the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy), was held to be generic.5

    Other terms that started as a protectable trademarks

    1 King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc., 321 F.2d 577, 581, 138 U.S.P.Q. 349 (2d Cir. 1963) (“The word [Thermos] having become part of the public domain, it would be unfair to unduly restrict the right of a competitor of King-Seeley to use the word.”); Application of Sun Oil Co., 57 C.C.P.A. 1147, 426 F.2d 401, 404, 165 U.S.P.Q. 718 (1970) (“All of the generic names for a product belong in the public domain.”); Henri's Food Products Co., Inc. v. Tasty Snacks, Inc., 817 F.2d 1303, 1305, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1856 (7th Cir. 1987) (“[A] generic name …. is irretrievably in the public domain, and the preservation of competition precludes its protection.”).

    2 Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 83 L. Ed. 73, 59 S. Ct. 109 (1938).

    3 Car-Freshner Corp. v. Auto Aid Mfg. Corp., 461 F. Supp. 1055, 201 U.S.P.Q. 233 (N.D.N.Y. 1978); AntiMonopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296, 204 U.S.P.Q. 978 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Trademarks are not properly used as patent substitutes to further or perpetuate product monopolies.”); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 189 U.S.P.Q. 759, 769 (2d Cir. 1976) (to protect a generic name would be to confer a “monopoly” on one seller in the sale of the named product); A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1364, 1375 (3d Cir. 1986) (“The genericness doctrine prevents trademarks from serving as the substitutes for patents, and protects the public right to copy any non-patented, functional characteristic of a competitor's product.”).

    4 CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, 531 F.2d 11, 188 U.S.P.Q. 612, 615 (2d Cir. 1975) (the author would slightly amend this comment to substitute “name” for “describe”).

    5 Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Evans, 105 N.J. 297, 520 A.2d 1347, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (1987).

    and then were held generic and therefore unprotectable as valid marks include: MONTESSORY (for educational method and toys used for such method)

    6 SELF-REALIZATION (a type of yoga spiritual organization)

    7 SOCIOGRAPHICS (for technique of management consulting)

    8 THERMOS (for vacuum-insulated bottles)

    9 EASTER BASKET (Easter floral bouquet)

    10, and many more.

    In the present case, similar to CHRISTIAN SCIENCE, the term Scientology has become generic. Also, it is a well-established law that showing of secondary meaning can never earn trademark status for a generic word or phrase.


    D. Even if the term "scientology" has not become a generic term, Registrant's Mark is a Weak Mark and Therefore is Entitled to a Narrower Scope of Protection.

    Exhibit B is a list of various media using the term scientology generically to refer to product or services defined by the term that are not associated with those of the registrant. As evidenced by Exhibits A and B, there are many media that use the term scientology generically. As stated above, registrant's own websites use the term scientology (and scientologist) generically without any trademark notice. Therefore at a minimum, on the scale of trademarks,
    the marks including some or all of the above word (in IC 042) must be considered rather weak.

    One important factor to be relied upon in determining registrability of a mark is the strength or weakness of the marks at issue. See, e.g. In re Hamilton Bank, 222 U.S.P.Q. 174 (T.T.A.B. 1984). Even weak marks are entitled to protection. In re National Data Corp., 222 U.S.P.Q. 515 (T.T.A.B. 1984), aff’d 224 U.S.P.Q. 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Plus Products v. Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc., 198 U.S.P.Q. 111 (T.T.A.B. 1978); In re Textron, Inc., 180
    U.S.P.Q. 341 (T.T.A.B. 1973). However, weak marks are entitled to a narrower scope of protection than strong marks. Based on the premise that weak marks are entitled to limited protection, the courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have repeatedly held that even where marks are nearly identical and even where the goods at issue are related to one another, confusion is not likely where the marks themselves are weak and where there are specific differences between the particular goods.

    6 American Montessori Soc'y v. Association Montessori Internationale, 155 U.S.P.Q. 591, 1967 WL 7288 (T.T.A.B. 1967).

    7 Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 902, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Self-Realization” held to be a generic name for a type of organization dedicated to spiritual attainment in the manner taught by yoga, but a descriptive term when used in connection with products and services sold by the organization; no secondary meaning found.).

    8 In re B. C. Switzer & Co., 211 U.S.P.Q. 644 (T.T.A.B. 1981).

    9 King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc., 321 F.2d 577, 138 U.S.P.Q. 349 (2d Cir. 1963).

    10 Teleflora, Inc. v. Florists Transworld Delivery Ass'n, 217 U.S.P.Q. 1081 (C.D. Cal. 1981).

    11 General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventist v. Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship International, Inc. 1991 WL 11000345, *4+, C.D.Cal; and American Ort, Inc. v. Israel 2007 WL 2049733, *6+, S.D.N.Y. 6

    For example, In re General Motors Corp., 23 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1465 (T.T.A.B. 1992), registration of the mark GRAND PRIX for automobiles was refused by the examining attorney based on a prior registration for the identical mark for use with automobile tires. However, the Board reversed the examining attorney in spite of the fact that the identical mark was used on closely related goods. In reaching this decision, the Board pointed out that the term “grand prix”
    was a weak mark. Therefore, based in large part on specific differences in the goods at issue, the Board concluded that confusion was not likely. (23 U.S.P.Q. 2d at 1470.)

    Here, there is evidence of many media that use the term scientology generically, without referring to registrant's services or source of such services. Therefore, the cited marks, which consist of or include the above word, are weak marks. Because of the weakness of the cited marks, as a whole, the registered marks are entitled to only narrow protection and do not bar registration of applicant’s mark.

    Applicant respectfully submits that the evidence in Exhibits A and B relied upon by Applicant is properly submitted and carries evidentiary value. According to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, such evidence is “competent to show that others in a particular area of commerce have adopted and registered marks incorporating a particular term.” In re Hamilton Bank, 222 U.S.P.Q. 174, 177 (T.T.A.B. 1984). In that decision, a number of prior registrations
    for marks that included the word “key” were cited by applicant to establish that its stylized trademark for KEY, though admittedly weak, was entitled to some narrow scope of protection. In reversing the refusal of registration, the Board relied on the evidence submitted by applicant and held that confusion was not likely. Id. at 178. Therefore, the evidence submitted by Applicant must be considered.

    In short, considering the many generic uses of the word "SCIENTOLOGY", the sophistication of the relevant class of consumers, and the weakness of the cited marks, no likelihood of confusion would arise as a result of applicant's use and registration of the trademark of "First Independent Church of Scientology," for spiritual ministry services. Accordingly, applicant respectfully requests that applicant's mark be approved for registration.

    II. Refusal Under False Association

    Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the religion or Church of Scientology.

    A. Applicant's Mark Does Not Falsely Suggest A Connection To Registrant.

    As explained above, the prominent and distinctive portion of the applicant's mark is the word "Independent," which means "Not being subject to control, or affiliated with others," "not requiring or relying on something else," or "not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct." This term, "independent" as the prominent term of the applicant's mark, makes it clear that the services provided under applicant's mark are not related or affiliated with those provided under the cited marks by the registrant. Accordingly, the applied-for mark does not falsely suggest a connection with the Church of Scientology, or the registrant, Religious Technology Center Corporation.


    In fact, the Office action admits that the "wording, 'independent church,' merely describes a self-governing religious institution." (Office action, fourth paragraph under the heading "DISCLAIMER REQUIRED." The clarification that applicant's services have no connection with those of registrant's is self-evident by the use of the term "independent" in applicant's mark.

    B. Applicant's Mark Does Not Point Uniquely and Unmistakably to Registrant.

    As explained above, the cited marks have become generic and used by the consumers and media generically to refer to epistemology. Moreover, the term scientology has become a recognizable religion practiced by many people, similar to Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism. In the same way that "first independent church of Christianity," or "first independent temple of Buddhism, or Judaism" does not refer to Vatican, The Eastern Orthodox Church, Apostolic Church, Chinese or Japanese Buddhism, Rabbinic Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, or Reform Judaism, "First Independent Church of Scientology" does not refer to another specific entity that practices the religion of Scientology, for example, Religious Technology Center Corporation.


    III. Disclaimer Required

    Applicant will address the issues under this Section of the Office action, after the refusals under Likelihood of Confusion and False Association are resolved.

    As a result, applicant respectfully requests that applicant's mark be approved for registration.


    Exhibit A
    Many other references to the term "scientology" in connection with religious, ministerial and spiritual services can be found by running a Google™ or Yahoo™ search.
    [1] The New Word by Allen Upward, Mirtchel, Kenerly, New York,1910. Online archived
    searchable copy available at:
    https://archive.org/stream/newwordanopenle01upwagoog/newwordanopenle01upwagoog_djvu.txt

    I find there are at least three atoms known to science, or at least to Scientology, the arithmetical atom, the physical one, and the logical one. Of these the logical one has been kept intact by unheard of efforts ; the other two have been split, and are being split every day.

    All this is not really science, but only Scientology. It is language. It is the magic lullaby in which the shapes of things melt and reshape themselves forever.

    It is no whit better than theological writing. And unhappily Scientology is as often mistaken for science as theology is for worship. whereas Materialism was a mix - we had no quarrel with its facts. We distinguished between science and Scientology.

    [2] "What Is Scientology" http://www.whatisscientology.org/ Registrant's own website.
    Definition of Scientology

    The word Scientology is taken from the Latin scio, which means "knowing, in the fullest sense of the word," and the Greek word logo, meaning "study of." It literally means knowing how to know. Scientology is knowing YOURSELF, LIFE, FAMILY, the universe, the spirit, GOD The study of Truth
    Scientology is a religion in its highest meaning, as it helps bring man to total freedman and truth.

    [3] "Scientology.org" http://www.scientology.org/ This is one of the registrant's main websites.

    Exhibit B

    [1] Kwanzaa: The Scientology of Holidays - Conservative Outfitters
    https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/11155173-kwanzaa-the-scientology-ofholidays

    [2] Libertarianism: The Scientology of Politics - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpXJkwddsYY
    Jun 6, 2014 - Uploaded by The Majority Report with Sam Seder
    After briefly discussing the paper, A Dilemma for Libertarians, with a listener, Sam and
    the crew get into a ...

    [3] The Scientology of Crossfit | Adam Berke | LinkedIn
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scientology-crossfit-adam-berke
    LinkedIn
    Nov 24, 2015 - I am not a douche-bag, I am "Crossfit confident"? The first time I witnessed
    Crossfit I was working on Brickell Avenue in Miami's financial district.

    [4] Paleo is the Scientology of Diets | Body for Wife
    www.bodyforwife.com/paleo-is-the-scientology-of-diets/
    I was close to landing a fitness interview with Tom Cruise, but then he bailed. And so I
    am now free to say that Scientology is stupid. People make fun of the ...

    [5] Giordano Memorization System (GMS) - The "Scientology of memory ...
    mt.artofmemory.com/.../giordano-memorization-system-gms-the-scientology-of-mem...
    I've been doing a bit of research on GMS (Giordano Memorization Systems), which one
    poster here referred to as "the Scientology of memory systems".

    [6] The Beatles: The Scientology Of Pop - The Afterword
    theafterword.co.uk › Blog
    Nov 3, 2015 - Maybe I don't like some of them, maybe you don't, but the argument that The
    Beatles Are The Best is now the scripture of the Scientologist.


    [7] The scientology of pizza - The Something Awful Forums
    https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3786008
    42 posts - 6 authors
    the scientology of pizza. ... Yobgoblin. scientology has science in it but the only math they do is
    counting their dirty money. 519x301. Emotes I bought: Thanks to: ...
    CLM PAS1439963.1-*-09/19/16 10:56 AM

    .
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2016
  7. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    First Independent Church of Scientology again argues, "The Term "Scientology" Has Become a Generic Term and Therefore is Not Entitled To a Trademark Protection."

    Written response by First Independent Church of Scientology to USPTO Non-Final Office Action Tentatively Denying Application For Graphic Trademark.


    Among things, the First Independent Church of Scientology argues that, "C. The Term "Scientology" Has Become a Generic Term and Therefore is Not Entitled To a Trademark Protection."

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86905517&docId=ROA20160920172205#docIndex=1&page=1

    First Independent Church of Scientology (79664)

    I. Section 2(d) Refusal - Likelihood of Confusion

    Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4674470, 4533003, 2717563, 2678135, 1342353, 1329474, 1318717, 1306997, 1540928, and 0898018. In view of the following arguments and remarks, applicant respectfully requests that applicant's mark be approved for registration.

    A. Cited Marks are Different In Appearance, Sound, Connotation and Commercial Impression From Applicant's Mark.

    Marks must be viewed as a whole in assessing whether there would be a likelihood of confusion.

    First, applicant's mark includes a distinctive color design including a large circular shape with darker blue circumference, a smaller circular shape with lighter blue circumference located inside of the larger circular shape, a Cross shape inside of the smaller circular shape with white outer perimeter and darker blue inner perimeter, the Cross shape having a star shape of the same color at its crossing. It is clear that this unique color design and scheme is significantly different in appearance and commercial impression from those cited registered marks that include a very different design with the words "SCIENTOLOGY MEDIA PRODUCTION" and "LOS ANGELES HISTORIC CULTURAL MONUMENT EST. 1912" prominently displayed with the very different design.
    Second, applicant's mark additionally includes a distinctive font design with the words FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY in color blue prominently displayed in three lines to the right of the circular design. The word "FIRST" has a significantly larger font located on the top line, the words INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF are displayed in smaller fond in the second line and finally the word SCIENTOLOGY is displayed in a "medium" font in the
    last (third) line. Again, it is evident that this unique color font design is significantly different in appearance and commercial impression from those cited registered marks.

    Third, applicant's mark consists of five different words "First," "Independent," "Church," "Of," and "Scientology." Most of the cited marks (except "Scientology Volunteer Minister" and "International Scientology News") consist of a single word "Scientology." The prominent and distinctive portion of the applicant's mark is the word "Independent," which is the second word in the mark versus "Scientology," which is the fifth and last word of the mark. This prominent and distinctive portion of the applicant's mark, "independent" has a commonly known meaning of:

    a (1) : not subject to control by others :self-governing (2) :not affiliated with a larger controlling unit <an independent bookstore>b (1) : not requiring or relying on something else : not contingent <an independent conclusion> (2) : not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct (3). not bound by or committed to a political party c (1) : not requiring or relying on others (as for care or livelihood).
    2
    Merriam-Webster Dictionary. See, http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/independent

    "Not being subject to control, or affiliated with others," "not requiring or relying on something else," or "not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct," create a significantly different appearance, meaning and commercial impression that merely the terms (cited marks) "Scientology," "Scientology Volunteer Minister," and "International Scientology News." In fact, the term "independent" as the prominent term of the applicant's mark makes it clear that the services provided under applicant's mark are not related or affiliated with those provided under the cited marks.

    Therefore, applicant's mark is significantly different in appearance, meaning and commercial impression from the cited registered marks.

    Fourth, the addition of the other two words "First" and "Church" in the five-word applicant's mark of "First Independent Church of Scientology" provides a different commercial impression than the cited marks. There are many known marks, which include the distinctive word "First" to distinguish them over other marks or generic names, such as "First Foundation Trust," "First Foundation Advisors," "First Foundation," "First Foundation Bank," "Consumer
    First," "First Market Capital," "First Aid," etc.. Accordingly, the addition of the particular word "First" (in addition to the distinctive word "Independent") to many marks or generic names, operates to significantly differentiate between them.

    As a result, applicant's mark is significantly different in appearance, meaning and commercial impression from the cited registered marks.

    B. Sophisticated Relevant Buyers of Applicant's Services Are Less Likely to be Confused by Registrant's Marks.

    The consumers of both applicant's services and the services of registrant are professionals, celebrities, prominent business owners and educated individuals who are sophisticated and are familiar with the service providers of such services nation-wide. Most of these sophisticated consumers are repeat customers and are closely familiar with various service providers in self-fulfillment, spiritual, ministerial industries. Since applicant's mark prominently
    includes the term "Independent," which stands for "Not being subject to control, or affiliated with others," "not requiring or relying on something else," or "not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct, such sophisticated consumers would readily recognize that the source of goods and services for the applicant's mark is not the same as those of the registrant's.

    As Professor McCarthy so appropriately stated (J. Thomas McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks, §23:101) "[m]any cases state that where the relevant buyer class is composed of professionals or commercial buyers familiar with the field, they are sophisticated enough to not be confused by trademarks that are closely similar. That is, it is assumed that such professional buyers are less likely to be confused than the ordinary consumer." Thus, while two marks might be sufficiently similar to confuse an ordinary consumer, a professional buyer or an expert in the field may be more knowledgeable and will not be confused. (See, for example, Arrow Fastener Co. v. Stanley Works, 59 F.3d. 384 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1449 (2nd Cir. 1995), where knowledgeable buyer of defendant's $400 pneumatic stapler gun used for building construction and furniture manufacture is sophisticated and not likely to be confused with defendant's model number; and CMM Cable Rep. v. Ocean Coast Props., Inc. 888 F. Supp. 192, 36 U.S.P.Q.2d 1458 (D. Me. 1995), aff'd,97 F.3d 1054, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d (1st Cir. 1996), where sophisticated professional buyers "are less likely to be confused as to the source of origin of a product than ordinary
    consumers of inexpensive foods or services"; summary of judgment of no likelihood of confusion of radio station executives.

    Here, like any of the above cases, relevant buyers of registrant's services are professionals, celebrities, prominent business owners and educated individuals, who are more knowledgeable than ordinary consumers and thus will not be confused by applicant's use and registration of "First Independent Church of Scientology" for spiritual ministry services.

    In short, considering differences in appearance, meaning and commercial impression of the marks and the sophistication of the relevant class of consumers of the services, no likelihood of confusion would arise as a result of applicant's use and registration of the trademark of "First Independent Church of Scientology" for spiritual ministry services.

    C. The Term "Scientology" Has Become a Generic Term and Therefore is Not Entitled To a Trademark Protection.

    “A generic or common descriptive term is one which is commonly used as the name or description of a kind of goods.” Miller Brewing Co. v. G. Heileman Brewing Co., 561 F.2d 75, 79. “The critical issue in genericness cases is whether members of the relevant public primarily use or understand the term sought to be protected to refer to the genus of goods or services in question.” H. Marvin Ginn Corp. v. Int’l Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc., 782 F.2d 987, 228 USPQ 528 530 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re America Online Inc., 77 USPQ 2d. 1618, 1622 (TTAB 2006). Trademarks act as source-identifiers; their purpose is to distinctly point out the source of the goods. In re Taylor & Francis Publishers, Inc., 55 U.S.P.Q.2d 1213, 1215 (T.T.A.B. 2000) (holding that "a generic entity designation [] is incapable of serving a source-indicating function"); TMEP § 1209.03(d) (same).

    Here, for example, in a book (Exhibit A, [1]) written in the year 1910 (way before the term "scientology" was coined by the registrant, Religious Technology Center Corporation), the term "scientology" was used generically all over the book as a "quasi science" related to study or investigation of knowledge, or epistemology.

    Registrant's own website defines scientology (without any trademark notice) as literally meaning "knowing how to know," or epistemology (Exhibit A, [2]). This word has now become generic for religious services including "Religious and Ministerial Services Including pastoral Counseling." (See, the cited Registration No. 1318717).

    Additionally, another registrant's own website ("scientology.org") (Exhibit A, [3]), uses numerous headers including the word scientology generically and without any trademark notice. For example, “Scientology Video Channel”, “Scientology Newsroom”, “What is Scientology?”, “Scientology Today”, “Inside a church of Scientology”, “New Churches of Scientology”, “Meet a Scientologist”, “Scientology Today”, “Ideal Saint Hill Inauguration Crowns Extraordinary
    Scientology Season of Expansion”, “What is the Concept of God in Scientology?”, “David Miscavige - Scientology’s Ecclesiastical Leader”, “The Scientology Bridge to Total Freedom”, “Scientology Beliefs and Practices", etc. If Scientology is supposed to be an adjective, they could talk about Scientology processing, or something like that. There are two references to “the Scientology religion”, but there is also a statement that “Scientology is a religion …”. The wordScientology is mostly used as a generic noun.

    In this main website, the word Scientology and Scientologist are shown in the same font as the surrounding text, do not stand out and lack any trademark notices.

    Accordingly, the members of the relevant public primarily visiting registrant's website understand the terms Scientology and Scientologist refer to the genus of services for "Religious and Ministerial [and spiritual] Services," and not the specific services or goods provided by the registrant.
    Generic terms are in the public domain and should be free for all to use.1. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated: “Sharing in the goodwill of an article unprotected by patent or trademark is the exercise of a right possessed by all—and in the free exercise of which the consuming public is deeply interested.”2

    To grant an exclusive right to one firm of use of the generic name of a product would be equivalent to creating a monopoly in that particular product, something that the trademark laws were never intended to accomplish3. Judge Friendly remarked that to permit exclusive trademark rights in a generic name “would grant the owner of the mark a monopoly, since a competitor could not describe his goods as what they are.”4

    1 King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc., 321 F.2d 577, 581, 138 U.S.P.Q. 349 (2d Cir. 1963) (“The word [Thermos] having become part of the public domain, it would be unfair to unduly restrict the right of a competitor of King-Seeley to use the word.”); Application of Sun Oil Co., 57 C.C.P.A. 1147, 426 F.2d 401, 404, 165 U.S.P.Q. 718 (1970) (“All of the generic names for a product belong in the public domain.”); Henri's Food Products Co., Inc. v. Tasty Snacks, Inc., 817 F.2d 1303, 1305, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1856 (7th Cir. 1987) (“[A] generic name …. is irretrievably in the public domain, and the preservation of competition precludes its protection.”).

    2 Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co., 305 U.S. 111, 83 L. Ed. 73, 59 S. Ct. 109 (1938).

    3 Car-Freshner Corp. v. Auto Aid Mfg. Corp., 461 F. Supp. 1055, 201 U.S.P.Q. 233 (N.D.N.Y. 1978); AntiMonopoly, Inc. v. General Mills Fun Group, 611 F.2d 296, 204 U.S.P.Q. 978 (9th Cir. 1979) (“Trademarks are not properly used as patent substitutes to further or perpetuate product monopolies.”); Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc., 537 F.2d 4, 189 U.S.P.Q. 759, 769 (2d Cir. 1976) (to protect a generic name would be to confer a “monopoly” on one seller in the sale of the named product); A.J. Canfield Co. v. Honickman, 808 F.2d 291, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1364, 1375 (3d Cir. 1986) (“The genericness doctrine prevents trademarks from serving as the substitutes for patents, and protects the public right to copy any non-patented, functional characteristic of a competitor's product.”).

    4 CES Publishing Corp. v. St. Regis Publications, 531 F.2d 11, 188 U.S.P.Q. 612, 615 (2d Cir. 1975) (the author would slightly amend this comment to substitute “name” for “describe”).

    5 Registrant consistently refers to scientology as a religion. See, for example, Exhibit A [1] and [2]:
    http://www.scientology.org/what-is-scientology/the-practice-of-scientology.html
    Within the vast amount of data which makes up Scientology’s religious beliefs and practices there are many principles which, when learned, give one a new and broader view of life.

    Here, to grant an exclusive right to registrant for use of the generic name of a religion would be equivalent to creating a monopoly in that particular religion, which is also against the First Amendment rights of free exercise of religion.

    Over time, a myriad of terms were held to be generic and unprotectable as valid marks. For example, CHRISTIAN SCIENCE (for a religious organization following the teachings of Mary Baker Eddy), was held to be generic.5

    Other terms that started as a protectable trademarks and then were held generic and therefore unprotectable as valid marks include: MONTESSORY
    (for educational method and toys used for such method) 6, SELF-REALIZATION (a type of yoga spiritual organization)7, SOCIOGRAPHICS (for technique of management consulting)8, THERMOS (for vacuum-insulated bottles)9, EASTER BASKET (Easter floral bouquet)10, and many more.

    In the present case, similar to CHRISTIAN SCIENCE, the term Scientology has become generic. Also, it is a well-established law that showing of secondary meaning can never earn trademark status for a generic word or phrase.11


    D. Even if the term "scientology" has not become a generic term, Registrant's Mark is a Weak Mark and Therefore is Entitled to a Narrower Scope of Protection.

    5 Christian Science Bd. of Directors of First Church of Christ, Scientist v. Evans, 105 N.J. 297, 520 A.2d 1347, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1093 (1987).

    6 American Montessori Soc'y v. Association Montessori Internationale, 155 U.S.P.Q. 591, 1967 WL 7288 (T.T.A.B. 1967).

    7 Self-Realization Fellowship Church v. Ananda Church of Self-Realization, 59 F.3d 902, 35 U.S.P.Q.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Self-Realization” held to be a generic name for a type of organization dedicated to spiritual attainment in the manner taught by yoga, but a descriptive term when used in connection with products and services sold by the organization; no secondary meaning found.).

    8 In re B. C. Switzer & Co., 211 U.S.P.Q. 644 (T.T.A.B. 1981).

    9 King-Seeley Thermos Co. v. Aladdin Industries, Inc., 321 F.2d 577, 138 U.S.P.Q. 349 (2d Cir. 1963).

    10 Teleflora, Inc. v. Florists Transworld Delivery Ass'n, 217 U.S.P.Q. 1081 (C.D. Cal. 1981).

    11 General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventist v. Seventh-Day Adventist Kinship International, Inc. 1991 WL 11000345, *4+, C.D.Cal; and American Ort, Inc. v. Israel 2007 WL 2049733, *6+, S.D.N.Y.

    6 Exhibit B is a list of various media using the term scientology generically to refer to product or services defined by the term that are not associated with those of the registrant. As evidenced by Exhibits A and B, there are many media that use the term scientology generically. As stated above, registrant's own websites use the term scientology (and scientologist) generically without any trademark notice. Therefore at a minimum, on the scale of trademarks,
    the marks including some or all of the above word (in IC 042) must be considered rather weak.

    One important factor to be relied upon in determining registrability of a mark is the strength or weakness of the marks at issue. See, e.g. In re Hamilton Bank, 222 U.S.P.Q. 174 (T.T.A.B. 1984). Even weak marks are entitled to protection. In re National Data Corp., 222 U.S.P.Q. 515 (T.T.A.B. 1984), aff’d 224 U.S.P.Q. 749 (Fed. Cir. 1985); Plus Products v. Physicians Formula Cosmetics, Inc., 198 U.S.P.Q. 111 (T.T.A.B. 1978); In re Textron, Inc., 180 U.S.P.Q. 341 (T.T.A.B. 1973). However, weak marks are entitled to a narrower scope of protection than strong marks. Based on the premise that weak marks are entitled to limited protection, the courts and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board have repeatedly held that even where marks are nearly identical and even where the goods at issue are related to one another, confusion is not likely where the marks themselves are weak and where there are specific
    differences between the particular goods. For example, In re General Motors Corp., 23 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1465 (T.T.A.B. 1992), registration of the mark GRAND PRIX for automobiles was refused by the examining attorney based on a prior registration for the identical mark for use with automobile tires. However, the
    Board reversed the examining attorney in spite of the fact that the identical mark was used on closely related goods. In reaching this decision, the Board pointed out that the term “grand prix” was a weak mark. Therefore, based in large part on specific differences in the goods at issue, the Board concluded that confusion was not likely. (23 U.S.P.Q. 2d at 1470.)

    Here, there is evidence of many media that use the term scientology generically, without referring to registrant's services or source of such services. Therefore, the cited marks, which consist of or include the above word, are weak marks. Because of the weakness of the cited marks, as a whole, the registered marks are entitled to only narrow protection and do not bar registration of applicant’s mark.

    Applicant respectfully submits that the evidence in Exhibits A and B relied upon by Applicant is properly submitted and carries evidentiary value. According to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, such evidence is “competent to show that others in a particular area of commerce have adopted and registered marks incorporating a particular term.” In re Hamilton Bank, 222 U.S.P.Q. 174, 177 (T.T.A.B. 1984). In that decision, a number of prior registrations
    for marks that included the word “key” were cited by applicant to establish that its stylized trademark for KEY, though admittedly weak, was entitled to some narrow scope of protection. In reversing the refusal of registration, the Board relied on the evidence submitted by applicant
    and held that confusion was not likely. Id. at 178. Therefore, the evidence submitted by Applicant must be considered.

    In short, considering the many generic uses of the word "SCIENTOLOGY", the sophistication of the relevant class of consumers, and the weakness of the cited marks, no likelihood of confusion would arise as a result of applicant's use and registration of the trademark of "First Independent Church of Scientology," for spiritual ministry services. Accordingly, applicant respectfully requests that applicant's mark be approved for registration.

    II. Refusal Under False Association

    Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the religion or Church of Scientology.

    A. Applicant's Mark Does Not Falsely Suggest A Connection To Registrant.

    As explained above, the prominent and distinctive portion of the applicant's mark is the word "Independent," which means "Not being subject to control, or affiliated with others," "not requiring or relying on something else," or "not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance in conduct." This term, "independent" as the prominent term of the applicant's mark, makes it clear that the services provided under applicant's mark are not related or affiliated with those provided under the cited marks by the registrant. Accordingly, the applied-for mark does not falsely suggest a connection with the Church of Scientology, or the registrant, Religious Technology Center Corporation.

    In fact, the Office action admits that the "wording, 'independent church,' merely describes a self-governing religious institution." (Office action, fourth paragraph under the heading "DISCLAIMER REQUIRED." The clarification that applicant's services have no connection with those of registrant's is self-evident by the use of the term "independent" in applicant's mark.

    Additionally, the unique color graphic and color font design of applicant' mark is significantly different in appearance and commercial impression from those cited registered marks and therefore does not falsely suggest a connection with the Church of Scientology, or the registrant, Religious Technology Center Corporation.

    B. Applicant's Mark Does Not Point Uniquely and Unmistakably to Registrant.

    As explained above, the cited marks have become generic and used by the consumers and media generically to refer to epistemology. Moreover, the term scientology has become a recognizable religion practiced by many people, similar to Christianity, Buddhism, or Judaism. In the same way that "first independent church of Christianity," or "first independent temple of Buddhism, or Judaism" does not refer to Vatican, The Eastern Orthodox Church, Apostolic Church, Chinese or Japanese Buddhism, Rabbinic Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, or Reform Judaism, "First Independent Church of Scientology" does not refer to another specific entity that practices the religion of Scientology, for example, Religious Technology Center Corporation.

    III. Disclaimer Required

    Applicant will address the issues under this Section of the Office action, after the refusals under Likelihood of Confusion and False Association are resolved.

    As a result, applicant respectfully requests that applicant's mark be approved for registration.


    Exhibit A
    Many other references to the term "scientology" in connection with religious, ministerial and spiritual services can be found by running a Google™ or Yahoo™ search.
    [1] The New Word by Allen Upward, Mirtchel, Kenerly, New York,1910. Online archived
    searchable copy available at:
    https://archive.org/stream/newwordanopenle01upwagoog/newwordanopenle01upwagoog_djvu.txt
    I find there are at least three atoms known to science, or at least to Scientology, the arithmetical atom, the physical one, and the logical one. Of
    these the logical one has been kept intact by unheard of efforts ; the other two have been split, and are being split every day. All this is not really science, but only Scientology. It is language. It is the magic lullaby in which the shapes of things melt and reshape themselves forever.

    It is no whit better than theological writing. And unhappily Scientology is as often mistaken for science as theology is for worship. whereas Materialism was a mix - we had no quarrel with its facts. We distinguished between science and Scientology.
    [2] "What Is Scientology" http://www.whatisscientology.org/ Registrant's own website.
    Definition of Scientology\
    he word Scientology is taken from the Latin scio, which means "knowing, in the fullest
    sense of the word," and the Greek word logo, meaning "study of." It literally means knowing how to know. Scientology is knowing YOURSELF, LIFE, FAMILY, the universe, the spirit, GOD The study of Truth Scientology is a religion in its highest meaning, as it helps bring man to total freedman
    and truth.
    [3] "Scientology.org" http://www.scientology.org/ This is one of the registrant's main websites.

    Exhibit B
    [1] Kwanzaa: The Scientology of Holidays - Conservative Outfitters
    https://www.conservativeoutfitters.com/blogs/news/11155173-kwanzaa-the-scientology-ofholidays
    [2] Libertarianism: The Scientology of Politics - YouTube
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpXJkwddsYY
    Jun 6, 2014 - Uploaded by The Majority Report with Sam Seder
    After briefly discussing the paper, A Dilemma for Libertarians, with a listener, Sam and
    the crew get into a ...
    [3] The Scientology of Crossfit | Adam Berke | LinkedIn
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/scientology-crossfit-adam-berke
    LinkedIn
    Nov 24, 2015 - I am not a douche-bag, I am "Crossfit confident"? The first time I witnessed
    Crossfit I was working on Brickell Avenue in Miami's financial district.
    [4] Paleo is the Scientology of Diets | Body for Wife
    www.bodyforwife.com/paleo-is-the-scientology-of-diets/
    I was close to landing a fitness interview with Tom Cruise, but then he bailed. And so I
    am now free to say that Scientology is stupid. People make fun of the ...
    [5] Giordano Memorization System (GMS) - The "Scientology of memory ...
    mt.artofmemory.com/.../giordano-memorization-system-gms-the-scientology-of-mem...
    I've been doing a bit of research on GMS (Giordano Memorization Systems), which one
    poster here referred to as "the Scientology of memory systems".
    [6] The Beatles: The Scientology Of Pop - The Afterword
    theafterword.co.uk › Blog
    Nov 3, 2015 - Maybe I don't like some of them, maybe you don't, but the argument that The
    Beatles Are The Best is now the scripture of the Scientologist.
    12
    [7] The scientology of pizza - The Something Awful Forums
    https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3786008
    42 posts - 6 authors
    the scientology of pizza. ... Yobgoblin. scientology has science in it but the only math they do is
    counting their dirty money. 519x301. Emotes I bought: Thanks to: ...
    CLM PAS1440360.1-*-09/19/16 11:00 AM






    .
     
  8. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    The First Independent Church of Scientology is represented by a major intellectual property law firm with regard to its trademark applications. See:

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86817837&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86817837&docId=CCA20160920081736#docIndex=2&page=1

    Their attorney is Raymond Tabandeh of Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP:

    http://www.lrrc.com/

    According to his Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP biography, Raymond Tabandeh is a partner of the firm in the Los Angeles office. In addition to 17 years experience in intellectual property law, he has the following degrees:

    J.D., Loyola Law School, 1998
    M.B.A., University of Southern California, 1989
    Advanced Engineering Degree, University of Southern California, 1987, Electrical Engineering
    M.S., University of California, Los Angeles, 1983, Electrical Engineering
    B.S., University of California, Los Angeles, 1981, Electrical Engineering

    Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie has approximately 300 attorneys in 10 offices across five states.

    The firm's "About Us" page states:

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP is built on the strengths and reputations of strong legacy firms focused on client relationships and quality representation:

    Lewis Roca Rothgerber was an Am Law 200 firm created with the 2013 combination of Lewis & Roca, a leading Southwestern law firm founded in 1950, and Rothgerber Johnson & Lyons, a leading Rocky Mountain firm founded in 1903. Lewis Roca Rothgerber maintained a commitment to a high standard of client and public service, with a longstanding tradition of handling pro bono matters including cases such as Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), in which John P. Frank, John Flynn and others, represented Ernesto Miranda in the landmark case giving rise to "Miranda Rights."

    Christie, Parker & Hale was a boutique intellectual property firm established in Los Angeles in 1954 dedicated to every phase of IP procurement, enforcement, and defense. The practice included all facets of patent prosecution (including utility, design and plants), trademark prosecution, IP litigation, licensing, IP strategy, copyrights and trade secrets; internet law and domain disputes.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    The firm has locations in:

    Albuquerque, NM
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Denver, CO
    Irvine, CA
    Las Vegas, NV
    Glendale, CA
    Phoenix, AZ
    Reno, NV
    Menlo Park, CA
    Tucson, AZ

    From the above I draw the conclusion that the efforts by the First Independent Church of Scientology in this area are well-funded. Such representation does not come cheap.









    .
     
  9. phenomanon

    phenomanon Canyon

    This just reminds me of the suit that COS filed against Larry West for using the word 'Scientology' in his promo of his Field Practice. That was the first lawsuit that I was aware of that COS filed for Copyright Infringement
    He changed the name to Scio Logos, and he put every single Process on CD. The CDs still exist around here and there. But Scio Logos didn't fly and Larry couldn't fight COS.
    The ironic thing was that LRH had just named Lawrence ( Larry) his most valuable Class V111 Auditor, and awarded him Kha Kahn status.
    Then sued. The suit was a copyright infringement case against Larry for using "Scientology".
     
  10. TheSneakster

    TheSneakster More Skeptical Than You

    This is not possible in the U.S. because Copyright and Trademark are entirely separate and even have separate government offices (U.S. Copyright Office and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office). I do not doubt that the Co$ might have falsely promoted a copyright lawsuit win as also being about Trademarks.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist
    caveat: I am *not* a lawyer.
    Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mhobson2011
    email: warrior_mike2001@yahoo.com
     
  11. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Sneakster is right. If the lawsuit was truly for using the word "Scientology" in the promo for his Field Practice, it would have been a lawsuit for trademark infringement, unfair competition, etc., and not for copyright infringement. You can't copyright a single word. That is what trademark law is for.
     
  12. oneonewasaracecar

    oneonewasaracecar Gold Meritorious Patron

    The Independent's have really put up a good case.
     
  13. phenomanon

    phenomanon Canyon


    Thanks, Michael. I think you're right . :thumbsup:
     
  14. Jump

    Jump Operating teatime


    Attorney Leslie Hyman pointed out during a legal case that an entity can't be a business and a church at the same time. So, which is it ?
     
  15. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    BREAKING: Trademark applications by First Independent Church of Scientology Suspended

    BREAKING: Trademark applications by First Independent Church of Scientology Suspended

    Both the text only and the graphic trademark applications by the First Independent Church of Scientology have been suspended pending adjudication of earlier filed applications by the Church of Scientology. A search of the earlier filed applications (86336991, 86336984, 86339615, 86336978, 86335732, 86336981, 86336980, 86336979, 86335735, 86338294, 86339617) show they all are Church of Scientology trademark applications concerning Scientology Media Productions (863369

    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86817837&docId=SUL20161018114807#docIndex=0&page=1

    [​IMG]



    http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86905517&docId=SUL20161018114639#docIndex=0&page=1

    [​IMG]




    .
     
  16. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    First Independent Church of Scientology Technical Standards Committee Bridge

    First Independent Church of Scientology Technical Standards Committee (TSC) has agreed upon a Bridge. More Developments.

    The Religious Liberty League (RLL), the animating force behind the First Independent Church of Scientology, has made its first blog post in six months. That post will be linked, excerpted and discussed a bit below.

    Religious Liberty League: A Giant Step Forward

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/a-giant-step-forward/

    * * * * * BEGIN FIRST EXCERPT * * * * *

    Legal Research Project Done

    Our team of legal experts completed an exhaustive research project we had commissioned for the purpose of determining the best way to proceed with the First Independent Church of Scientology and its objective to practice the religion of Scientology outside the suppressive confines of the church. As our readers know, we took this route once it became clear that internal reform was impossible.

    The value of this accomplishment cannot be overstated. It is indeed a “giant” step. For now we have identified the exact barriers and the most efficient ways to overcome them. It was neither easy nor cheap. We spent weeks screening the lawyers, and months educating them on the subject itself. One of the first questions posed to us helps illustrate the difficulty. “If you have all the materials and have studied them, why can’t you just teach Scientology yourself? Why do you need to use the materials themselves?”

    “Well, you see, Scientology study doesn’t work that way,” was our initial reply.

    While the lawyers were coming up to speed on the nuances of Scientology services, they hit the law books. They studied each and every case, not only those brought by C of S but all those brought by other break-away churches that were sued for trademark and copyright breaches. Such an approach has never been undertaken previously.

    The end result is a state-of-the-art legal analysis of laws of trademark and copyrights in the context of the free practice of a religion, specifically the Scientology religion.

    Based thereon, we have formulated both short-term and long-term strategy.

    The short-term strategy consists of two steps, one of which has been taken and we can now report it. (We will report the second step as soon as we take it – which is imminent.)

    * * * * * END FIRST EXCERPT * * * *

    Comment: None


    * * * * * BEGIN SECOND EXCERPT * * * * *

    Responses Filed with Patent & Trademark Office

    [SNIP]

    Just in. The USPTO ruled on the response. Trademark applications denied. At the same time, the applications were suspended pending resolution of new trademark applications using the word Scientology filed by the church in 2014. This means our 6-month deadline to appeal the decision is waived. See Ruling on Responses.

    * * * * * END SECOND EXCERPT * * * * *

    Comment: The FICS's Responses to the USPTO were noted, linked and set forth here weeks ago. See prior posts above.

    As discussed in prior posts above, the use of the word "denied" in the above excerpt is simply wrong. The FICS's trademark applications were not "denied." Their adjudication was suspended pending the adjudication of trademark applications previously filed by the Church of Scientology. The RLL recognizes this when it states, "the applications were suspended pending resolution of new trademark applications using the word Scientology filed by the church in 2014." As a result, I have no idea why the RLL used the word "denied."\


    * * * * * BEGIN THIRD EXCERPT * * * * *

    Step Two – Copyrights

    Step two of our short-term strategy regards the use of copyrighted LRH materials by FICS. We invested a lot of time and money into determining the best way to proceed in this regard, and feel we have identified the exact correct way.

    We have always known the way not to do it. Contrary to the false ideas of many in the independent field, flagrant use of copyrighted and trademarked materials is not viable. Sure, some people are doing it and getting away with it. But they are vulnerable to legal actions and are therefore not safe and secure. No effort of magnitude, especially an organization, can afford to act so naively or cavalierly.

    * * * * * END THIRD EXCERPT * * * * *

    Comment: None


    * * * * * BEGIN FOURTH EXCERPT * * * * *

    The Bridge to Total Freedom

    The Technical Standards Committee (TSC) has agreed upon a bridge based on LRH references. It is currently being designed for display and publication. Once the artistic layout is completed we will publicize it on this blog and invite your comments based on written, verifiable source references that the TSC may have overlooked. No opinion, verbal or hidden data lines.

    * * * * * END FOURTH EXCERPT * * * * *

    Comment: None
     
  17. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    Merrell Vannier speaking for the Religious Liberty League has reiterated the need for a solution for the copyright problem so the First Independent Church of Scientology can serve as a Central Org.

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/a-giant-step-forward/

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Merrell Vannier October 29, 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Yes, training is being done in the field. Carry on. Those doing so are subject to copyright infringement actions and many independents have been given cease and desist letters. The Church can engage in selective enforcement and are not likely to go after every Tom, Dick & Harry, nor does it make sense. An analogy would be the copying of online music. The music industry did not and cannot go after everyone, but it did selective go after some and, for sure, went after the organized ones, e.g., Napster. What we are trying to do is create a Central Org. Standard Tech can only be maintained and have longevity through a Central Org. Hope this helps.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
     
  18. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    First Independent Church of Scientology granted US 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status

    First Independent Church of Scientology granted US 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status.

    Religious Liberty League: FICS Granted Tax-Exempt Status

    http://religiouslibertyleague.org/fics-granted-tax-exempt-status/

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Another milestone toward the establishment of the First Independent Church of Scientology (FICS) has occurred. It has been granted tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3).

    See the Official Notice.

    Distinction With Religious Liberty League

    To remind our readers, Religious Liberty League (RLL) fashions itself to be the Department 20 for the “Religion” of Scientology. That is, RLL’s main mission is to protect the free practice of the religion independently of the church of Scientology – at least until that entity is reformed and brought into alignment with the religion.

    The establishment of FICS is a project of RLL. The entities are separate and autonomous, and are intended to remain that way.

    RLL was previously granted tax-exempt status, as we then reported on this blog.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    Go to PDF for better copy:

    http://www.religiouslibertyleague.org/Tax Exempt Ltr_FICS.pdf

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2016
  19. CommunicatorIC

    CommunicatorIC @IndieScieNews on Twitter

    How the new First Independent Church of Scientology is trying to wrestle away control over the word ‘Scientology’

    See Tony Ortega's post for the analysis by Scott Pilutik.

    Tony Ortega: How a new independent ‘church’ is trying to wrestle away control over the word ‘Scientology’

    http://tonyortega.org/2016/11/09/ho...estle-away-control-over-the-word-scientology/

    I'll add that someone pointed out to Scott Pilutik what I already noted above:

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    UPDATE: It’s been brought to my attention that there is an error in my article regarding filing dates. Because the matter was only suspended, response deadlines are moot. My mistake, I apologize.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
     
  20. scooter

    scooter Gold Meritorious Patron

    IANAL but I do believe these peeps have a chance at legally breaking the cult's monopoly on the "Tehc'

    And that would be a fabulous thing as, like the Internet, Hubbard never seemed to have foreseen that except to say that everything should be copyrighted to prevent losing the monopoly.

    Imagine setting up an Independent $cientology stress-test next to a cult one - just for the lulz of course.:roflmao:

    Or renting a warehouse next to an Idle Morgue and setting up your own "$cientology Mi$$ion":hysterical:

    I'd break out my Minister's cross and dog collar just to be part of that.:biggrin: