Lawsuit against FAIR

[Markk]

Hi CI

It's you guys that keep bring up the BOM, are you reading the posts here, give me a break... If the LDS church does in fact own the trademark then like I said in my posts the Tanners are wrong, and shouldn't use it, but I think there is more to it than your claims, but I could be wrong. The copyright of the BOM is most likely for the LDS version, but I think you know that. The LDS version of the bible is also copy righted by the prophet, be honest here CI, does that mean they own the word "bible".

I never claimed to be or understand law CI, like I said I'm a carpenter, I'm just giving my opinion, and I'll stand by my opinion, and if I'm wrong, I'll admit it, can you do the same? Think about it?

It's obvious that you do hate the Tanners...why? What are some of the things they have written that are not true? Most of their work is just simply quoting LDS history. The many versions of the first vision that JS claimed, The fact that he said Abraham signed the papyri, or the fact that the LDS leaders change the temple ceremony many times?

They are getting old, and I'm sorry to here Jerald is sick, but their work is truth and truth stands, and if you were honest with your self you would critisize their work piece by piece, and not just hate them. Try testing what the say.

Face it, the Tanners are old news. They've been replaced by a new generation of actual scholars such as Mouw, Owen and Mosser et al.

Your dreaming, and like the politicians, are spewing lame talking points, that is just not true. LDS scholarship is a Joke, and bias, and for the most part men and women stuck in the hole of Mormon confusion trying to throw dirt out of the hole but can't get it high enough to get out, like I said they preach to the choir. It seems one thread here that LDS "scholarship' is active is trying prove the Nephites rode Tapars and deers, and your slaming the Tanners? The Tanners work has created this hole to get deeper, not because they invented theories, but because of timeless research they exposed the facts and truth that the LDS faith is based on many falsehoods.

You really need to read my posts, you would see I don't agree with the Tanners taking his to court, I've said this more than once. But that does not make their work any less the truth, that's just a fact you need to deal with.

Mark

John 1:12

[Dunamis]

Folks, let us not turn this thread into an Evangelican/Mormon bashfest, all right?

Markk, you are the one making accusations here and the heat level is rising. You need to support your claims. We cannot expect posters not to challenge them. I have seen it said more than once that the Mormon church holds the trademark on the Book of Mormon. That is no more complicated (or different) than saying the Tanners hold the trademark for their property. You need to acknowledge that and move on.

[Bsix]

From a legal standpoint, I don't think the Tanners have a leg to stand on.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that knock-off URL's similar to those of trademarked entities is protected First Amendment speech. As long as the site using the knocked-off URL is speaking in opposition to the trademark owner and is not seeking to profit. That is the law.

Thus, I think that buying and owning URLs that are similar to the Utah Lighthouse Ministry is legal and ethical. I don't know that I think it is good public-relations form. I believe that the person who hosted the knock-off URLs saw the PR downside and folded. Good for them.

In spirit, the knock-off Tanner URLs are no different in regards to ethics than antiMormon websites that incorporate LDS names and venacular as a part of their URL.

[Markk]

Hi Dunamis,

With all respect, did you read my last post? Or any of my posts? I believe I am being objective here in regards to the case and feel both parties are wrong, whether legally or in principle. But, I also believe this case does not negate either Wyatts or the Tanners work and positions, it should be treated seperate.

I also understand by reading the rules of this site that being fair is not the objective of this site, the survival of the site is more important, and I understand and respect that, and I understand my views are in the minority here, and I have my hands tied at times and need to be carefull in what I say, and I respect that also.

So I apoligize in one respect, but also ask you to re-read my posts to understand my position.

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

Moderator: If you think being civil is "tying your hands" you need to go elsewhere. If you read my comments you would see that I was addressing those who were not being civil about evangelicism as well. Do not waste our time arguing with moderators.

[Markk]

Hi CI,

Word Mark BOOK OF MORMON

Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: pre-recorded audio and video cassette tapes and compact discs featuring religious content. FIRST USE: 19770000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770000

IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Printed matter; namely religious books, religious instructional pamphlets, and brochures; photographs, artist materials, instructional and teaching material, posters, engravings, prints of paintings, books. FIRST USE: 18300000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 18300000

Here is the Trademark rights held by the church, I don't see anything thatthe Tanners have infrindged on, please give the legalize here, to me it deal only with printed and audio types of material

Thanks

Mark

John 1:12

[Pace Nielsen]

Mark,

Apparently you missed the point people have been making. It isn't whether or not the Tanner's are doing something illegal. It is whether or not you are holding a double standard. To show otherwise, you have to demonstrate why you believe that Wyatt's use of the Tanner's names is illegal/inappropriate while the Tanner's use of the trademarked words "Book of Mormon" is not illegal/inappropriate.

Cheers,

Pace

[Bsix]

It seems that the Church has trademarked the phrase "Book of Mormon." the Tanners on the other hand have not trademarked the name of their organization -- Utah Lighthouse Ministry.

I believe that a trademark gives the owner the right to "own" the phrase in regards to a catagorical use -- not simply the media in which the trademark is used. (In other words, you don't trademark something for distribution on the internet and not television.) If you own a trademark in a particular catagory, you have use and control of that trademark's usage for your catagory across all media. Including the web.

In the case of the trademark "Book of Mormon", the Church has clearly reserved the rights to this wordmark in regards to religious publishing catagory...no matter what the medium.

I'd say that the Tanners are cyber-squatting on a legally trademarked name owned by the Church. I imagine that if the Church wanted to, it could force the Tanners to cough up the URL.

Regards,

Six

[Markk]

Hi Pace,

Go back and read my posts, I've done that more than once...right or wrong.

Bsix,

From what I gather, the church does not own the trademark for the use the Tanners use, it is only a trademark for commerce of printed materials, tapes posters, and cd's etc...Again i'm not a lawyer and look forward to CI's interpretation. The Tanners use the URL BOM to give there personal views of the Book which is perfectly legal...From what I gather the Book of Mormon itself is public domain, just as the bible is. Do a Google search on Public Domain and the BOM and you will find several site that offer it free online as public domain, including the Univ. of Michigan which I checked out.

Mark

John 1:12

[Pace Nielsen]

Markk,

I have read your argument, but it still seems like a double standard to me.

For example, you claim that because the Tanner's have studied the Book of Mormon, they can use the name to redirect people to their website where they will learn how the Tanner's feel about the book. On the other hand, you don't like Wyatt doing the exact same thing with the Tanners. (He has studied their works, used their names to redirect people to a website where they'd learn more about the Tanners).

That is what people are asking.

You have to give your criteria, and ALSO explain why the Tanners are okay with regards to that criteria but Wyatt is not.

Best,

Pace

[Confidential Informant]

It's you guys that keep bring up the BOM, are you reading the posts here, give me a break...

Yes, we did bring up the phrase "Book of Mormon", but it is you who continues to misunderstand the nature of the argument.

If the LDS church

[Markk]

Hi CI,

The reason I said you hated the Tanners is because you wrote this..."I would have preferred www.sandratannersucks.com or www.tannerslie.com or even the every popular www.tannersrotinhell.com." ...

Here is the trade mark scope the Church owns....

Word Mark BOOK OF MORMON

Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: pre-recorded audio and video cassette tapes and compact discs featuring religious content. FIRST USE: 19770000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770000

IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Printed matter; namely religious books, religious instructional pamphlets, and brochures; photographs, artist materials, instructional and teaching material, posters, engravings, prints of paintings, books. FIRST USE: 18300000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 18300000

As far as I can see thier trademark rights do not include others views of the BOM, if I'm wrong let me know and why? Also as I noted above the Book of Mormon its self is public domain and anyone can print thier own version, as the LDS church chose to do, again am I wrong here and why?

Mark

John 1:12

[Dale]

Wyatt made a legal mistake & handed over the URL's to the ULM people. The problem illustates the need for anybody wanting to put up a ULM expose site to be careful. I want to see such websites online under more carefully chosen URL's. The ULM people should drop the suit & excercise a bit of genuine Christian charity.

Sincerely,

Dale

[smac97]

> Wyatt made a legal mistake

==I disagree. My review of the statute and the relevant case law strongly suggests that Wyatt did nothing wrong.

> & handed over the URL's to the ULM people.

==But not necessarily because he "made a legal mistake."

> The problem illustates the need for anybody wanting to put up a ULM expose site to be careful.

==Indeed. The Tanners don't like to be critiqued. That much is certain.

> I want to see such websites online under more carefully chosen URL's.

==I don't think it's really necessary. The Tanners are become more obscure and irrelevant with each passing year.

> The ULM people should drop the suit & excercise a bit of genuine Christian charity.

==Yes, they should. But don't count on it.

-Smac

[Confidential Informant]

I was being more than a bit sarcastic. My point was that had Wyatt actually used one of these more descriptive but highly inflammatory domains, the Tanners wouldn't have been able to complain about anything. But by being a big more respectful, Wyatt gets sued.

Here is the trade mark scope the Church owns....

I've already seen this, but thank you for posting it as it goes directly to the "Unclean Hands" argument that Wyatt made in his motion. That Tanners are doing the exact same thing as Wyatt; what do you think their response would be if Kirton McConkie filed suit against them based on this? Oh, BTW, the Church registered this trademark before the Tanners put up their site. The Tanners didn't register "Utah Lighthouse Ministry" until after Wyatt had published his site. Thus, while Wyatt had no reason to believe a trademark had attached to the Tanner's name, the Tanners had every reason to know that "Book of Mormon" was trademarked by the Church, and thus they knowingly did what they did.

Mote, meet beam.

As far as I can see thier trademark rights do not include others views of the BOM, if I'm wrong let me know and why?

EXACTLY! You have finally caught on and didn't even know it. The law states that you cannot enjoin unauthorized use of a trademark if the user is simply providing critical information. This is EXACTLY what Wyatt did and therefore he hasn't controvened any laws. The Tanners are merely stung by his criticism and are seeking a way to shut him (and FAIR) up.

Also as I noted above the Book of Mormon its self is public domain and anyone can print thier own version, as the LDS church chose to do, again am I wrong here and why?

Why do you keep coming back to copyright law. That has nothing to do with this case. This is a trademark case, not a copyright case, therefore it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

C.I.

[Markk]

Hi CI,

The reason I bring up public domain is that the Book of Mormon is public domain its not owned by anyone.

On the other hand UTLM is owned directly, as a non profit, by someone, and I was pointing this out, not because of the case, but because I was accused of using a "double standard" when I feel wasn't.

As far as the case goes this is what I said back on 6/28...

[SlackTime]

Thought I'd revive this with a prayer for Allen et al and success in their hearing today.

-SlackTime

[Elphaba]

Thought I'd revive this with a prayer for Allen et al and success in their hearing today.

-SlackTime

I wasn't here when this all started and the original link is no longer valid. What is this all about? I can see something about domain names, but I am too lazy to wade through 18 pages of posts to see if I can piece a story out of it. Can someone tell me just a quick summary of what happened?

[smac97]

Thought I'd revive this with a prayer for Allen et al and success in their hearing today.

-SlackTime 

I wasn't here when this all started and the original link is no longer valid. What is this all about? I can see something about domain names, but I am too lazy to wade through 18 pages of posts to see if I can piece a story out of it. Can someone tell me just a quick summary of what happened?

Here's the Cliff's Notes version of what this case is about:

1. Jerald and Sandra Tanner are a married couple who run a "ministry" ("Utah Lighthouse Ministry") in Salt Lake City that is critical of the LDS Church.

2. FAIR (this board's sponsoring organization) is a non-profit organization intended to defend the LDS Church and its beliefs and practices.

3. Allen Wyatt volunteers as the webmaster for FAIR. He is not paid for his work.

4. A while back Allen purchased some domain names that "spoof" or sound like they would belong to the Tanners (sandratanner.org, sandratanner.com, jeraldtanner.org, jeraldtanner.com, geraldtanner.org, geraldtanner.com, utahlighthouse.org, utahlighthouse.com, utahlighthouseministry.org, and utahlighthouseministry.com).

5. Allen used his own money and time to purchase these domains and build websites on them. These websites mimicked or parodied the Tanners. These websites also included hyperlinks to free articles on the FAIR website. These free articles were written in response to the Tanners.

6. The Tanners filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Allen and FAIR in federal district court in Salt Lake City.

7. The attorneys for Allen and FAIR filed motions to dismiss the Tanners' lawsuit. The judge ordered oral argument on these motions. The hearing for oral argument was scheduled for today.

The legal arguments against the Tanners' suit are fairly complex, and I don't have time to summarize them here (Confidential Informant would be a much better person to provide such a summary). But here are a few tidbits:

-Allen's websites were clearly non-commercial. The Lanham Act (the federal statute that governs use of trademarks) generally requires that a plaintiff show that use of a trademark was for a commercial purpose.

-The Tanners' claims against FAIR are very tenuous. Basically, they are suggesting that Allen linked to free FAIR articles, and that FAIR has a bookstore elsewhere on its website. These links, the Tanners claim, are sufficient to render Allen's websites "commercial." I don't think the court will buy that argument, as it would virtually destroy the commercial/non-commercial distinction as to websites. That ain't gonna happen.

-There is a Ninth Circuit decision that is squarely on point and goes very much in favor of Allen and FAIR. Alas, Utah is in the Tenth Circuit, so the court isn't obligated to follow that precedent (although I think the court will consider doing so).

-Smac

[Calm]

6. The Tanners filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Allen and FAIR in federal district court in Salt Lake City.

Don't forget that the Tanners made no attempt to contact anyone prior to the filing in order to either acquire the sites or get the links removed. IIRC, the first Allen or FAIR heard about any of it was through the news.

[juliann]

I'm hearing rumors that the defense wasn't very prepared and able to answer some of the judge's questions. Somebody ought to check on RFM...if anything remotely positive happened they will be buzzing.

[Elphaba]

I'm hearing rumors that the defense wasn't very prepared and able to answer some of the judge's questions. Somebody ought to check on RFM...if anything remotely positive happened they will be buzzing.

I'm not finding anything on RFM about it. I can't imagine how anyone could stomach that much hate and anger by posting on there regularly.

[juliann]

Heh...that is why I said someone ought to check. Sounds like it really didn't go well for the defense.

[Dale]

I hope the lawsuit against FAIR get's done with fairly soon.

[persistent]

I'm hearing rumors that the defense wasn't very prepared and able to answer some of the judge's questions. Somebody ought to check on RFM...if anything remotely positive happened they will be buzzing.

Unless is comes out in the news, I doubt there will be any reacton over there. A lurker here might bring information over, but that is it. Once a final judgment is made we can bet money that all the claims that the judge was biased, that the "Morg" supported it or pressured the outcome will be all over the place.

[Dale]

If the UTLM folks won it would be a bragging occasion for them. If they loose you won't hear much about it from them. They will forget about it & move on as quickly as possible.