ias, c of s, trademarks for drugs

[aaron saxton]

The below information is in relation to trademarks owned by the Church of Scientology. In addition to this I believe DM also owns trademarks for security devices.

A full search needs to be conducted of the worldwide patent office. This needs to be done (and would not be cheap) to establish what trademarks C of S and their related entities and their dircetors have owned and sold in the past.

Questions raised are as follows:

1. How did C of S get the trademarks?
2. Did they receive royalties or fees for the use of the trademarks - thus earning a living from drugs being sold?
3. Did they offload the trademarks at a profit?
4. The current owners of the trademarks need to be asked if they purchased the trademarks, and if so, knowing C of S, they would have charged an arm and a leg, thus making profit from drugs.
5. If the Drugs were owned by the Church, they could therefore deny they took the drugs as taking psych drugs as they were owned by a Church. Little Pink and Greys.

Perhaps the reason why C of S will not open it's books on ALL their related entities is because they are making money in ways which would go against their anti-drug stance. who knows what trademarks IAS also owns or purchases they have sponsored?

Speculation should be raised.

However and International search of:
A. All known persons involved in Scientology going back to 1959 would need to be conducted. Executives. known top people.
B. Then a directorship search of them.
C. Then a search on those companies and the trademarks they traded in since 1959.

This is a huge job.

The consequence to Scientology being found in posession of trademarks that produced an income from drugs.... it is a nail in their coffin, possibly the largest ever.

Here is some data. Please report to as many media outlets as possible for full investigation:
****************************************************
Lists of Trademarks associated with Church of Scientology, Adelaide, Australia.


Note: These searches were done within the parameters of “Sandoz” and “Novartis” using ten year date ranges.


The keyword “scientology” did NOT bring up these trade marks (except for three which brought the matter to my attention – Litec, Serentil and Brinaldix).


The CofS is listed as a historical proprietor in each.


Please see attached spread-sheet for more detailed info: “CofS Trade Marks”.


Source: Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand (IPONZ)

www.iponx.govt.nz



A-Z:

Trade Mark No.

Atamir: 02 Nov 1971. 98718
Batrevac: 02 Nov 1971. 98711
Beregat: 04 Oct 1971. 98374
Blowex: 30 Jan 1979. 126729
Brinaldix: 11 July 1962. 71284
Caterpillar Symbol: 08 Oct 1976. 117201
Gillazym: 02 Nov 1971. 98721
Gyretun: 17 April 1974. 107935
Litec: 17 Sep 1970. 94891
Miacalcic: 08 Oct 1976. 117202
Noveril: 06 April 1978. 123101
Por 8 Sandoz: 02 Nov 1971. 98715
Rhinergal: 02 Nov 1971. 98720
Safrotin: 30 Jan 1979. 126730
Sandoflor: 10 June 1974. 108551
Sandoz (1): 25 Nov 1963. 74704
Sandoz(2): 25 Nov 1963. 74705
Sandoz (3): 25 Nov 1963. 74706
Sandoz Symbol: 13 July 1970. 94257
Sandoz-Vac: 29 June 1979. 128620
Sandomigran: 13 Nov 1969. 92020
Sangesic: 16 Oct 1968. 88348
Sanorex: 02 Nov 1971. 98726
Serentil: 09 Aug 1968. 87645
Sibumir: 04 Oct 1971. 98382
Sirdalud: 09 March 1981. 136289
Sylvirex: 18 Oct 1971. 98537
Teronac: 08 Aug 1973. 105293
Thuricide: 28 May 1959. 63965
Tilges: 04 Oct 1971. 98384
Tiotilin: 06 Dec 1977. 121924
Viskaldix: 09 Nov 1976. 117505
Visken: 26 March 1969. 89792
Zaditen: 10 July 1969. 90767


CHRONOLOGICAL:


Trade Mark No.

Thuricide: 28 May 1959. 63965
Brinaldix: 11 July 1962. 71284
Sandoz (1): 25 Nov 1963. 74704
Sandoz (2): 25 Nov 1963. 74705
Sandoz (3): 25 Nov 1963. 74706
Serentil: 09 Aug 1968. 87645
Sangesic: 16 Oct 1968. 88348
Visken: 26 March 1969. 89792
Zaditen: 10 July 1969. 90767
Sandomigran: 13 Nov 1969. 92020
Litec: 17 Sep 1970. 94891
Beregat: 04 Oct 1971. 98374
Sibumir: 04 Oct 1971. 98382
Tilges: 04 Oct 1971. 98384
Sylvirex: 18 Oct 1971. 98537
Por 8 Sandoz: 02 Nov 1971. 98715
Atamir: 02 Nov 1971. 98718
Batrevac: 02 Nov 1971. 98711
Gillazym: 02 Nov 1971. 98721
Rhinergal: 02 Nov 1971. 98720
Sanorex: 02 Nov 1971. 98726
Sandoz Symbol: 13 July 1970. 94257
Teronac: 08 Aug 1973. 105293
Gyretun: 17 April 1974. 107935
Sandoflor: 10 June 1974. 108551
Viskaldix: 09 Nov 1976. 117505
Caterpillar Symbol: 08 Oct 1976. 117201
Miacalcic: 08 Oct 1976. 117202
Tiotilin: 06 Dec 1977. 121924
Noveril: 06 April 1978. 123101
Blowex: 30 Jan 1979. 126729
Safrotin: 30 Jan 1979. 126730
Sandoz-Vac: 29 June 1979. 128620
Sirdalud: 09 March 1981. 136289

 

[mate]

Hi Aaron.

This is certainly a major revelation. Well done on collecting the information.

BTW, the link you have given, is incorrect. It should be

www.iponz.govt.nz

I suggest you change it on your original posting.

Regards, David.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I tried verifying some of this on the IPONZ site and got nowhere. I couldn't get the search engine to accept a query. If anyone can actually achieve success at this, even with one item, please post details of how you did it. And please don't say simply, "Follow the instructions there."

Paul

 

[Gadfly]

If THAT could be proven, with the news spread FAR and WIDE, what a wonderful hard slap to their collective Scientology faces!

 

[sallydannce]

I tried verifying some of this on the IPONZ site and got nowhere. I couldn't get the search engine to accept a query. If anyone can actually achieve success at this, even with one item, please post details of how you did it. And please don't say simply, "Follow the instructions there."

Paul

I can help you here:

1. Trademarks tab.
2. Search.
2. Use trade mark # (figure on right of each drug name)
or alternatively you will get a "hit" using the drug name.

let me know how that goes.

http://www.iponz.govt.nz/cms

 

[Gottabrain]

Very, very interesting. I'm going to research this much more deeply.

A Trademark is the symbol, BTW. A Patent is on the actual product.

 

[sallydannce]

Very, very interesting. I'm going to research this much more deeply.

A Trademark is the symbol, BTW. A Patent is on the actual product.

A TM gives a "commercial advantage". It allows a stronger legal position on a product. Exclusive use or only registered permission use.

Stuff like that.

 

[Dulloldfart]

I can help you here:

1. Trademarks tab.
2. Search.
2. Use trade mark # (figure on right of each drug name)
or alternatively you will get a "hit" using the drug name.

let me know how that goes.

http://www.iponz.govt.nz/cms

Oh. I was doing all the above, but didn't see the search button right at the top. Duh. OK, that works now. I didn't check more than a couple on the list, but they checked out OK. At least, they checked out when entering the trademark name, but not when entering the name "scientology".

It's very strange. Needs further investigation. At a guess, I would say it is a clerical error on IPONZ's part, but who knows?

Paul

 

[sallydannce]

Oh. I was doing all the above, but didn't see the search button right at the top. Duh. OK, that works now. I didn't check more than a couple on the list, but they checked out OK. At least, they checked out when entering the trademark name, but not when entering the name "scientology".

It's very strange. Needs further investigation. At a guess, I would say it is a clerical error on IPONZ's part, but who knows?

Paul

yes this was the trick as the word "scientology" does not come up with a normal search as possibly the "historical proprietors" data in not linked in, if you get my drift. I suspect it is just the way their pgm is set up. Need to ask my database expert next time I talk to him.

The searches had to be "manually" done. Using creative parameters and several buckets of coffee!

 

[Div6]

I always thought the drug companies pulled the names for these things off of the whole track, just to add the "restim" factor in to the mix...



Could this be "the smoking gun"?

Weird...........

 

[Carmel]

<snip>
The searches had to be "manually" done. Using creative parameters and several buckets of coffee!

Hey matey from across the ditch,

I know that when ya stumbled across all this, that you then spent hours and hours on it, in order to present it in a way that we here can understand, with the purpose of more answers and some more exposure of the CofS. Good on you for this, and for all your good works.

At the very least, it looks like you've found something here.....Looking forward to seeing where this goes.

Cheers,
Carmel

 

[AnonKat]

I Can Haz scientology Psych drugs noa ?

 

[Panda Termint]

I think you'll find that it was a misguided IAS-sponsored project to snap up the Trademarked names of certain drugs in order to prevent the Drug companies continuing to use them, sort of cornering the market on Brand Names.
The bright sparks behind it hadn't considered the fact that Brand Names are a dime-a-dozen.
They've done the same thing with website names.

 

[sallydannce]

I think you'll find that it was a misguided IAS-sponsored project to snap up the Trademarked names of certain drugs in order to prevent the Drug companies continuing to use them, sort of cornering the market on Brand Names.
The bright sparks behind it hadn't considered the fact that Brand Names are a dime-a-dozen.
They've done the same thing with website names.

I have considered that. Possible.

The product range is everything from blood pressure medicine, to veterinary products, to eye drops, to weed/vermin killers.

There is no pattern. That I can see. Yet.

We can at this time only “see” what there is to see.

On public record, it is a fact that the CofS Adelaide held proprietorship for 34 various pharmaceutical drugs/products/symbols. The date ranges for how long that proprietorship lasted varies. As does what happened to the trademark ownership – some are still current with a new owner, others have expired.

Most of the trademarks are not for psychiatric related drugs.

What was the program being run? By whom? It continued for about 20 years – what’s that about? We may never know.

There will be public records around the world which will fit in with this info. That much I am willing to speculate. I would be very grateful if people with far more skill than I would pick up this data and run with it. If there is an intellectual property lawyer in the house...

The program seems to only involve Sandoz (later known as Novartis) – Sandoz manufactured/marketed LSD (brand name: delysid). To date all the TMs found are related to Sandoz.

I have endless theories. You can bend this data in many ways.

For now, I am not speculating on what has been going on. I am just going to keep asking questions.

Experts need to look at this info.

So what else is under the rock?

Let’s see.

 

[mate]

Hi Panda,
Unfortunately the IAS didn't exist during this period of the '60s, in fact the trademarks started before COSCERI. And it should be noted that the owners of the trademarks was the CofS Adelaide. The IAS was a Miscavige idea and he was only one year old, when the first of the trademarks was registered. Also I can't see a major US pharmaceutical corporation using and paying royalties on a product name registered in Adelaide, when they could invent their own. Remember, it is name not the patent, which is registered. We have barely started to "pull the string" to get our "Sherman tank"

I might add that who were involved at start of this activity, would now be their '70s and '80s, if in fact, they were still alive.

Regards, David.

I think you'll find that it was a misguided IAS-sponsored project to snap up the Trademarked names of certain drugs in order to prevent the Drug companies continuing to use them, sort of cornering the market on Brand Names.
The bright sparks behind it hadn't considered the fact that Brand Names are a dime-a-dozen.
They've done the same thing with website names.

 

[sallydannce]

The title of the thread would preferably not have "IAS" in it.

The IAS wasn't formed until 1984.

The TMs are from between 1959 and 1981.

 

[Panda Termint]

The title of the thread would preferably not have "IAS" in it.

The IAS wasn't formed until 1984.

The TMs are from between 1959 and 1981.

Yes, of course. HASI/IAS = CofS = Hubbardites of the World Unite! (in the manner dictated by CofS Management, of course.)

The International Association of Scientologists is certainly a misnomer seeing as association (except as directed) is strictly forbidden

I was just referring to the more generic nature of it all; I seem to recall something along the lines of a project to snap up certain Brand names whenever possible, possibly an old GO project or something.

PS: Maybe they were just "copyrighting" LRH's prescription pad?

 

[the-ghostwhowalks]

This revelation is potentially incredible...

If people can come foward and reveal what else the Cof S or Miscavige has the patents , copyrights to , this could be a piece of information that could accelerate the demise of the C of S...
We already know that DM blew 40 million on a failed oil well - not to mention buildings , armoured vehicles etc - What else has he purchased that would expose activities that a "church " is not supposed to do ? :confused2:

 

[sallydannce]

Yes, of course. HASI/IAS = CofS = Hubbardites of the World Unite! (in the manner dictated by CofS Management, of course.)

The International Association of Scientologists is certainly a misnomer seeing as association (except as directed) is strictly forbidden

I was just referring to the more generic nature of it all; I seem to recall something along the lines of a project to snap up certain Brand names whenever possible, possibly an old GO project or something.

PS: Maybe they were just "copyrighting" LRH's prescription pad?

 

[Anonycat]

Nice find. I'll be looking into this.