ESMB has entered archive mode. All posts and threads that were available to the general public are still readable. The board is still searchable. 

Thank you all for your participation and readership over the last 12 years.

If you want to join in the conversation, please join the new ESMB Redux at

ias, c of s, trademarks for drugs

Discussion in 'General Scientology Discussion' started by aaron saxton, Jan 22, 2010.

  1. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Dave you're a wonder mate!

    I am sure you're enjoying life . . . you strike me as the kind of guy who'd make participation in the game of life enjoyable under any circumstances! :happydance:

    On the change to the government registry system . . . that figures, and is not uncommon. I've seen it as I've moved about the world . . . one of the charms of being "old"!

    What you say above makes sense . . . but note that what you referred to is "when making a new registration" . . . we are looking at history, and that historic record, and in particular with reference to "wound up" or ceased to exist entities . . . those records would likely not transfer to the national index since they are no longer live.

    It would be prudent to search the old state records.

    One thing that has not been established is the domicile the two entities: "The Church of Scientology Incorporated" and "Church of Scientology Incorporated (Australia)" and, indeed, if they are labellings of of one and the same outfit!!!.


  2. sallydannce

    sallydannce Gold Meritorious Patron

    Time for a little frivolity.

    Should there be a sound-track to do this research to?

    I'll make a playlist...

    Isley Brothers: Harvest for the World.
    Robert Cray: Smoking Gun
    Gotan Project: Criminal
    India Arie: Headed in the Right Direction
    Gomez: Bring it on
    Miles Davis: Blow
    Nina Simone: Funkier than a Mosquito's Tweeter
    Blur: Out of Time
    Keb' Mo': Stand Up (and be strong)

  3. sallydannce

    sallydannce Gold Meritorious Patron


    Sea Org symbol
    Trademark #122299

    Filed: 1978.
    Registered: 1981
    Renewed: 1985, 1998.
    Current: Valid until 2013.

    Proprietor: RTC, USA

    Registered Users:

    • Flag, USA
    • CofS Adelaide.
    • CofS Mission of Christchurch, NZ (no longer legal entity)
    • New Era Publications, Denmark
    • NUODEX Colortrend Ltd, 235 Orenda Road, Bramalea, Ontario, Canada L6T 1E6, Canada.
    • CofS NZ

    CofS Church Cross (though I am not certain this cross is same as one used by CofS – hard to tell with drawing but looks different to me)
    Trademark #122297

    Filed: 1978
    Renewed 1999
    Current: Valid until 2013.

    Proprietor: RTC, USA.
    Registered Users:

    As above for # 122299 except in this one L Ron Hubbard is listed as an historical proprietor.

    Who or what is Nuodex Colortrend?

    I’ve not gone into deep research but seems Nuodex is a subsidiary of HULS AMERICA Inc. Speciality chemicals company.

    Names to watch out for in research:

    Huls America.

    ALSO (this one is from the "they've totally lost the plot" files):

    Please look at TM # 180602.

    CLUB MED! No I am NOT kidding! Words "club med" with a symbol of three arrows pointing upwards.

    Registered to RTC. Odd! Surreal even.

    Filed: 1988
    Renewed: 1995.
    Needs renewing as expired last year - 2009. Renewable. Best get onto this one RTC. lol

    Tell me what you make of this one! My first reaction when I saw the symbol was WTF!!!!!
    1. Trade Mark Tab
    2. Search
    3. Enter TM no. Fastest route to finding.
  4. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    This Might Help

    I thought it might help to attach the Charter of COSRECI here so folks can more easily refer to it when they want to see what we are talking about in the context of its violation by the CofS.


    Attached Files:

  5. AnonyMary

    AnonyMary Formerly Fooled - Finally Free

    These trademarks are to prevent these drugs from being sold by the particular drug name in the area covered by the trademark, ie: New Zealand.

    For example, if such and such 'pharma' company owns a certain medicine and trademark to the name to it in another country, they cannot promote or advertize it in New Zealand because CoS owns the trademark and of course, CoS would not gve permission to use it in advertisements or on labels in that country.

    Of course, there are generic versions, but they may well have tradem,arked those names as well.

    The whole point of these is to control the trade of these meds in New Zealand.

    Quite a 'smart idea' for the evil lawyer who thought of up. Just another example of how CoS tries to prevent people from getting appropriate medical care .
  6. sallydannce

    sallydannce Gold Meritorious Patron

    Yes life is often stranger than fiction and it was quite a "smart idea" as you say.

    I have no idea how much it costs to TM a product but I suspect it isn't a cheap outing. One has to wonder how much it cost to do all this TMing.
  7. AnonyMary

    AnonyMary Formerly Fooled - Finally Free


    The filing fees are probably not very expensive, per TM, but what is important is the matter of getting the TM first before any competitors grabs it.

    The paper work may be complex enough to require a lawyer, it can gets expensive paying their fee. But the trick was getting the TM's in the first place, and then it's a metter of maintaining the rights by renewal, which could require a periodic fee. Some owners forget to renew, causing an expired TM that comes up for grabs by the competition.

    I am curious if they have TM'd stuff like this in other countries. This is quite a find.

    ~ M
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2010
  8. mate

    mate Patron Meritorious

    Hi Mary.

    Yes, you are quite correct, the Australian trade-name registration fees back then were quite small and they probably still are. I remember hearing in the mid '60s, of a scam of registering the trade-name in Australia, of an American product that had been just released on the U.S. market, and selling the Australian rights to the U.S. corporation. With the creation at that time, of a large number of pharmaceutical drugs, these corporations were an easy target. Of course, eventually these corporations solved the problem by selling the drug with a different trade-name. This why on, say, wikipedia drugs have multiple trade-names on earlier drugs. And it looks like Hubbard was onto this scam.

  9. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    In the US before a TM is registered there is an opportunity for other interested parties to object, for example if they've already established trade in that category using that name. Assuming it had similar laws, you couldn't just go and register "Coca-Cola" in Wherethefuckisthatistan simply because the Coca-Cola Co. was slow off the mark in that country.

    Didn't the same hold true for NZ back then?

  10. sallydannce

    sallydannce Gold Meritorious Patron


    Yes as far as I understand it, you are correct.

    There is a publishing/notification system.

    You simply can't "buy a trademark". There is procedure to ensure no one is getting anyone else's toothpaste brand or fizzy drink.

    The first Trade Mark Act was 1953 - prior to that it was all managed under patents system. The current TM Act is 2002.

    This link gives brief outline of history of patent/TM laws in NZ.
  11. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    Not in the period we are interested in.

    There was a revision to the regulations recently (maybe only or less than 10 years ago, since I'm no longer in the business of searching these things I haven't kept up to date) . . . but it is governed by international convention that then gives local laws force where ever the convention is agreed to . . . not all have agreed nor comply: China is a case in point.

    There was a period of challenge always available . . . I remember this in Oz in 1960's and England in the 1970's . . . but one could only then challenge on the basis that a new application infringed an existing right you held in the jurisdiction. And the right is for a mark in a particular classification of products or trade.

    It is not uncommon to have similar trademarks . . . and even the exact same words registered by different folks in different classes . . . by class is meant type of trade or goods . . . i.e., look at the classification difference between a drug and hardware tools or the name of a motor car.

    Trademarks can be either an original design (like a stylistic logo) or an invented word! Note that last one :yes:

    I believe the new regulation now gives grounds for international companies to bring action to protest the registration of its "property" secured in its main markets from being pre-emptively registered by another (poacher) in another jurisdiction/country. But this is a recent thing. It only became possible with the development of computerized systems for the cataloguing of TMs.

    But, none-the-less, there is no prohibition of registration of a name for application in another, different class (as it is called) or category of goods.

    But we don't have to worry about Paul's point above. It does not apply to what we are looking at here with the CofS registrations in the same classifications at the time they were made.

  12. AnonyMary

    AnonyMary Formerly Fooled - Finally Free

    Yes, the word Scientologist comes to mind, lol!
  13. AnonyMary

    AnonyMary Formerly Fooled - Finally Free

    Wow. I didn't know all that. Thank you.

  14. Dulloldfart

    Dulloldfart Squirrel Extraordinaire

    Indeed. The CofS has only registered SCIENTOLOGIST in two categories. See my very comprehensive CofS trademarks page at

    IC 200. US 200. G & S [Goods & Services]: Indicating membership in a church. FIRST USE: 19520301. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19520531


    So if someone wanted to trademark a SCIENTOLOGIST buttplug lubricant or something, the crack is wide open. :). The international and US categories in that case are:

    IC 005. US 006 018 044 046 051 052. G & S: Biological and chemical preparations and reagents for medical or veterinary use; medicines for human beings, namely, antivirotic medicines, medicines for antibiosis, external medicines for disinfection and antiseptic, antineoplastic medicines, medicines for digestive system, hypoglycin, vitamin, cardiovascular drug, medicines for hyperamnesia, coenzyme medicines; dietetic sugar for medical use; antibiosis medicines used for animals; preparations for destroying vermin; insecticides; herbicides.

  15. RogerB

    RogerB Crusader

    As Mate notes:
    Yes, the reason the scam worked is because it costs a lot of extra $$$ to have to redo all the marketing and packaging materials. In fact, it would induce an additional packaging production line just to cater to the usurped market.

    On the marketing front, instead of running the same old ads, the company would have to redo TV ads and other media ads for the lost jurisdiction . . . all bloody expensive and aggravating.

    So, of course the victim of the scam would pay up:grouch:

    I remember TMs costing like £5 when I was doing it. Say ten bucks US . . . cheap! Not that I was scamming . . . that was to register my own stuff.