General Conference takes action to protect our Registered Trademark

[Nic Samojluk]

I received the following troubling message from an Adventist pro-lifer:

“Mark Price January 25 at 6:41pm Report

Hi Nic,

My Adventists For Life page was removed by Facebook because they received legal notice from the General Conference for "copyright infringement". If you do not want the same thing happening to your page, you will have to remove the "Adventist" name from your title and replace it with something else such as "Sabbath Keepers Pro-Life Center" or something else along those lines.”

*********

This is evidence of a double standard. Our Washington Adventist Hospital has been displaying the “Adventist” name while engaged in the killing of hundreds of innocent unborn babies, but the moment a pro-lifer uses the name Adventist in his ministry to save the lives of babies he becomes the target of legal action by the church.

This is morally objectionable in my view. What do you think? I believe in the biblical model for filing complaints against the action of our brethren regarding this critical issue. This is why I have written again to Ted Wilson this morning. Here is the copy of my letter. I believe that each one of us should do the same. Here is a link to the place where we can contact the church:

General conference of Seventh-day Adventists

http://www.adventist.org/contact.html

*********

“Ted Wilson, President

General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists

Dear Brother Wilson,

I am writing to you again because many pro-life Adventists are greatly concerned about something that took place a few days ago. Mark Price’s “Adventist for Life” web page was taken down by Facebook following a complaint from the General Conference alleging copyright infringement. We have a hard time understanding this double standard applied to Adventist pro-lifers. Some of our Adventists hospitals have been engaged in the killing of unborn babies with impunity for years, while a man whose mission is to save the lives of innocent babies has become the target of legal action by the church he has been supporting with his tithes and offerings.

We have been praying for you and your desire to lead the church in the direction of repentance and reformation since the day you were elected to lead our church, and we believe that this is an area where repentance and reformation is sorely needed. Our Washington Adventist Hospital has been involved in the abortion business while bearing the “Adventist” legal name and no legal action was taken by the church, but the moment a pro-life Adventist attempts to save human lives, the church forces him to drop the Adventist name from his web page and his site is shut down. We can’t understand this!

Some years ago, Jan Paulsen made a public declaration claiming that the Adventist Church is pro-life. How credible is such a claim given the evidence I have cited? We believe that Mark Price deserves a prompt apology and that his web page bearing the Adventist name should be reinstated immediately. Besides, the term “Adventist” is a generic name which has been used and is being used by many entities. I just googled the Adventist term and got a list 148,000 sites using that name. A close examination reveals that it is used by many entities not directly connected with the church.

I can provide additional information and documentation in support of what I am stating here to you.

May the good Lord continue to bless your ministry for our church!

Nic Samojluk”

[Stan]

I support the GC legal on this.

This site, and others we have, have disclaimers like this

Quote:

THE CLUB ADVENTIST FORUM® is a self-supporting ministry and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland or any of its subsidiaries.

Copyright © ClubAdventist.com® 1999 - 2012

We do not want people to think/believe we are an official website of our Church, nor are giving official positions.

[Gerr]

Would I be infringing on the Church copyrights if I call myself Adventist? No? But what if I added, pro-life or pro-abortion to it?

[Overaged]

Would I be infringing on the Church copyrights if I call myself Adventist? No? But what if I added, pro-life or pro-abortion to it?

What exactly is the problem with that Gerry?

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

Would I be infringing on the Church copyrights if I call myself Adventist? No? But what if I added, pro-life or pro-abortion to it?

What exactly is the problem with that Gerry?

That's what I was wondering. How bout if I added,Seventh-day (Adventist)Kinship International? Or perhaps,Reform (Adventist)? Or maybe,(Adventist)Today? Adventists for World Peace? Adventists Against Prop.8?Or...........ad infinitum

[doug yowell]

I support the GC legal on this.

This site, and others we have, have disclaimers like this

Quote:

THE CLUB ADVENTIST FORUM® is a self-supporting ministry and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland or any of its subsidiaries.

Copyright © ClubAdventist.com® 1999 - 2012

We do not want people to think/believe we are an official website of our Church, nor are giving official positions.

The obvious difference being the AFL website would be critical of the church's official "guidelines". Something that no one with any cognitive function would be unable to figure out within 4.2 seconds, without a disclaimer.

[pindoc]

years ago, a Court determined that there is (1) the SDA church and (2) Adventism, in concept and not one and the same as the SDA church. along with that, the court deemed that the SDA church has no ownership of the term or reality of seventh-day adventism.

so per legal precedent, and in my opinion, the GC is totally off base here. and Facebook is obviously, at times, wussy.

IMNSHO

[doug yowell]

years ago, a Court determined that there is (1) the SDA church and (2) Adventism, in concept and not one and the same as the SDA church. along with that, the court deemed that the SDA church has no ownership of the term or reality of seventh-day adventism.

so per legal precedent, and in my opinion, the GC is totally off base here. and Facebook is obviously, at times, wussy.

IMNSHO

I agree but I have to say on Facebook's account, who needs a lawsuit?

[doug yowell]

years ago, a Court determined that there is (1) the SDA church and (2) Adventism, in concept and not one and the same as the SDA church. along with that, the court deemed that the SDA church has no ownership of the term or reality of seventh-day adventism.

so per legal precedent, and in my opinion, off base here. and Facebook is obviously, at times, wussy.

IMNSHO

I got different info from The Washington Post reporter.(See Tammy's post on Adventists,Abortion and the Washington Post)Do you have the details of the case? Your info might be more current.

[pindoc]

Originally Posted By: pindoc

years ago, a Court determined that there is (1) the SDA church and (2) Adventism, in concept and not one and the same as the SDA church. along with that, the court deemed that the SDA church has no ownership of the term or reality of seventh-day adventism.

so per legal precedent, and in my opinion, the GC is totally off base here. and Facebook is obviously, at times, wussy.

IMNSHO

I agree but I have to say on Facebook's account, who needs a lawsuit?

on Fb's account, nobody needs a lawsuit. I'm just saying that since there is legal precedent, and copyright and trademark claims by the GC have no basis, Fb had no basis to feel threatened by, or for succumbing to, GC's threats.

you can also add "Historic Seventh-day Adventists" to the list of organizations that would be at risk if there weren't solid legal precedent. I know someone who's a member. I said, but the Church could sue you. he enlightened me, and believe me, the Church usually only threatens smaller entities that they figure can't successfully defend themselves.

[doug yowell]

Did you read the post by The Post claiming that the church held all rights to both "adventist" and "Seventh-day Adventist"? There's a conflict in precedent over who owns what.Can you clear up what the church has legal right to? And what has been merely alleged? I'm thinking that the church is probably postering but actual legal judgments tell the real story. And in today's society who knows what the courts will come up with?

[Nic Samojluk]

Would I be infringing on the Church copyrights if I call myself Adventist? No? But what if I added, pro-life or pro-abortion to it?

Adding terms like “pro-abortion” or “pro-life” to the Adventist name is high treason for the church. You could probably get by if you used the phrase “pro-choice.”

The main problem I see is that by taking legal action against Mark Price, the church has positioned itself as pro-abortion. The message seems to be rather clear. If you use the name Adventist in connection with the killing of innocent unborn babies, you are safe, but if your aim is saving the lives of unborn babies, you are in big trouble.

Our Washington Adventist Hospital has been involved in the business of killing unborn babies for years without any action from the church, but the moment Mark Price decided to save babies from this genocide, the GC reacted immediately to stop his work.

Everybody knows by now that the Washington Post has reported on this, and I posted a couple of comments of my own there. I did previously write to Ted Wilson regarding the abortion issue, but I have received no response. This doesn’t surprise me. I had written to Jan Paulsen in the past and I am still waiting for an answer.

Here is the link to the WP article:

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfait...rer=emaillinkpg

[Stan]

calling this legal action, is a bit of an overstatement.

[Nic Samojluk]

That's what I was wondering. How bout if I added,Seventh-day (Adventist)Kinship International? Or perhaps,Reform (Adventist)? Or maybe,(Adventist)Today? Adventists for World Peace? Adventists Against Prop.8?Or...........ad infinitum

Good question! How come the GC has not taken issue with “Adventist Today”? They carry the name “Adventist” in their title and they have been publishing critical articles in defense of what the GC new president abhors: evolution. Is it because the church is afraid to take big entities like AT, but will fire their shots against small guys like Mark Price?

[Nic Samojluk]

years ago, a Court determined that there is (1) the SDA church and (2) Adventism, in concept and not one and the same as the SDA church. along with that, the court deemed that the SDA church has no ownership of the term or reality of seventh-day adventism.

so per legal precedent, and in my opinion, the GC is totally off base here. and Facebook is obviously, at times, wussy.

IMNSHO

You are correct. In a previous court case a judge ruled in favor of the defendant and against the church. This court action did not deter the church from scaring the daylights of people like Mark Price who does not have deep pockets to challenge the GC in court. His money is probably in the coffers of the church which took this action against him.

[Nic Samojluk]

I got different info from The Washington Post reporter.(See Tammy's post on Adventists,Abortion and the Washington Post)Do you have the details of the case? Your info might be more current.

Go to the Washington Post, read one of the first comments containing a link to a very long article critical to the action of the church, and you will find a reference to the court case where a judge ruled against the church in a trademark case.

[doug yowell]

calling this legal action, is a bit of an overstatement.

I agree. And against Mark Price is also not accurate. SDA Legal Dept. Gone Wild!!However, the church is morally and ethically responsible for effectively shutting down one if it's member's websites on false pretenses. They are also required by Scripture (God Himself)to go to an offending brother (alleged) personally and not use the secular court system to address what may,or may not be an offending issue.If the church lost it's case against Kinship and continues it's crusade in stark opposition to the state's legal ruling there's even a bigger problem here. One that goes beyond the abortion issue.

[Nic Samojluk]

on Fb's account, nobody needs a lawsuit. I'm just saying that since there is legal precedent, and copyright and trademark claims by the GC have no basis, Fb had no basis to feel threatened by, or for succumbing to, GC's threats.

you can also add "Historic Seventh-day Adventists" to the list of organizations that would be at risk if there weren't solid legal precedent. I know someone who's a member. I said, but the Church could sue you. he enlightened me, and believe me, the Church usually only threatens smaller entities that they figure can't successfully defend themselves.

You are right on this! This is precisely what I have been saying here and elsewhere. [The highlight in your comments is mine.]

[doug yowell]

Go to the Washington Post, read one of the first comments containing a link to a very long article critical to the action of the church, and you will find a reference to the court case where a judge ruled against the church in a trademark case.

Do you have a quick click reference that will take me right there?

[Nic Samojluk]

calling this legal action, is a bit of an overstatement.

You are right. It is what we call an hyperbole. Jesus did make hyperbolic statements on several occasions. He said, "If your eye offend you, pluck it out," and many similar declarations.

When you get a letter from an attorney "asking" you to desist from certain action, you know very well what will follow. In this case, Facebook took the request very seriously and deleted Mark's web site because they knew what would follow: a legal action. Past history confirms this!

[doug yowell]

Go to the Washington Post, read one of the first comments containing a link to a very long article critical to the action of the church, and you will find a reference to the court case where a judge ruled against the church in a trademark case.

Do you have a quick click reference that will take me right there?

[Nic Samojluk]

Do you have a quick click reference that will take me right there?

Here is the article dealing with Trademarks.

http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/adventist_trademark.php

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Do you have a quick click reference that will take me right there?

Here is the article dealing with Trademarks.

http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/adventist_trademark.php

Too much extra junk to sift thru here. It appears that the church was successful in it's attempts to trademark the use of it's name. I'm still trying to figure out what is legally permissible here. Who's got the factual facts?

[Nic Samojluk]

Too much extra junk to sift thru here. It appears that the church was successful in it's attempts to trademark the use of it's name. I'm still trying to figure out what is legally permissible here. Who's got the factual facts?

This is from the Washingon Post article:

"So the Adventists may be ahead of the times, not behind. They have been defending their name for some time, most notably in 1987, when they sued SDA Kinship, a group of gay Adventists, also charging trademark infringement. US District Judge Mariana Pfaeizer ruled against the church in 1991, saying the group's title did not infringe on the denomination's use of the name. The SDA did not appeal that ruling, but it's been fighting the unauthorized use of its name ever since."

Source: http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfait...rer=emaillinkpg

[doug yowell]

Originally Posted By: doug yowell

Too much extra junk to sift thru here. It appears that the church was successful in it's attempts to trademark the use of it's name. I'm still trying to figure out what is legally permissible here. Who's got the factual facts?

Yes, I read all that but what I can't figure out is why the courts ruled in favor of the church on the Creation Seventh-Day Adventists and against the church on the Kinship name? If the church won the Creation SDA case why not bring suit against a host of other entities using the name SDA? Is there a legal quirk that applies? Why can't the same legal precedent apply?