Finding a new name for the Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church

[ClubV12]

Let's review, one more time.

There are no "Seventh-day Baptists", they are "Seventh Day Baptists", note the subtle difference. "Adventist", is trademarked. "SDA", also trademarked. Here's one that may surprise you, "Ministry", trademarked, by the GC no less!

"Creation Ministry Sabbath Church" would be technically illegal.

If you USE one of the trademarked names, or a variation of those name's, for commercial purposes, the GC could make you stop, by legal force if so required. Use of the name like I'm using it in this post, to describe a group or in this case a trademark falls under "fair use laws". Also the GC is not going to come after you for minor use in promoting some meeting that is in harmony with the doctrines and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Nor would "Ford" if you used the trademarked name "Mustang". But at some point you could and people do, "cross a line". A line that disparages the church, confuses the doctrine of the SDA church, is for commercial purposes (like collecting tithe?), supporting a web site, printing a book, etc. Such use requires permission from the owner, the GC.

[Windsor]

Let's review, one more time.

There are no "Seventh-day Baptists", they are "Seventh Day Baptists", note the subtle difference. "Adventist", is trademarked. "SDA", also trademarked. Here's one that may surprise you, "Ministry", trademarked, by the GC no less!

"Creation Ministry Sabbath Church" would be technically illegal.

If you USE one of the trademarked names, or a variation of those name's, for commercial purposes, the GC could make you stop, by legal force if so required. Use of the name like I'm using it in this post, to describe a group or in this case a trademark falls under "fair use laws". Also the GC is not going to come after you for minor use in promoting some meeting that is in harmony with the doctrines and beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist church. Nor would "Ford" if you used the trademarked name "Mustang". But at some point you could and people do, "cross a line". A line that disparages the church, confuses the doctrine of the SDA church, is for commercial purposes (like collecting tithe?), supporting a web site, printing a book, etc. Such use requires permission from the owner, the GC.

IANAL but the church would have an incredible time preventing an organization from using the name Creation Ministry Sabbath Church. Also, Seventh-day may be easier to defend but there's no reason one couldn't use 7th day.

[ClubV12]

Hmmmm, "7th Day Advent Church" might work, with the members calling themselves 7th Day Advents.

[skyblue888]

As to form of organization, the SDA denomination is a governmental system; as one Conference president defined it, "a political system." We have "a constitution" and "by-laws." We have "administration headquarters" etc.

This was not God's idea for His church. We have put Him aside and accepted the devisings of men. As a result the name was trademarked.

sky

[Stan]

We are one of the fastest growing Church with about a 80% retention rate, according to an article in the Salt Lake City newspaper. ABout 25,000 per week, including some of the supporting parallel organization

We have an infrastructure that many believe was as a result of prayer and inspiration.

It is such a joy to talk with and visit those who have had a transformed life in Christ. OR you can talk with the CSDA members here in BC, who's conversation never got passed how the GC has the Mark of the beast because they stopped them from impersonating the Church.

Check out the fruits.

[Pastor_Chick]

[...]

Check out the fruits.

The fruits are here being displayed. ALL judgment has been delegated to the Son who judges righteously.

[Stan]

Speaking about Fruits.... would be interested in learning more of what you are doing in Uganda.. I saw a bit of the health work on a blog.

Have made a couple of trips there, almost 20 years ago.

I still check the New Vision and the other paper everyday.

There are some tough areas there. Is your work in the Country or in one of the cities?

re you able to provide aids medicine??

[Pastor_Chick]

My Fellow Debaters,

Some of you might not realize how our church name was styled. Here is how it appeared on the church house:

Legal documents have been filed with the USPTO stating that the General Conference Corporation makes "no exclusive claims" to the term "Adventist." The recent attempts by the GC legal department cannot hold up in court. They merely threaten people who are using "Adventist" because most will not bother to hire legal counsel to defend their case -- money is a factor, of course.

You will notice that OUR display of the name of our faith is significantly different from "Seventh-day Adventist."

I consulted with a District Court Judge for the Eastern Division of Tennessee (who was not to be involved in the lawsuit), and he told me that NO jury would return a finding of guilty regarding our case. This rings a bit similar to the opinion of Alan J. Reinach, Attorney and President of NARLA - West.

ALSO, our case was scheduled for jury trial, but because the GC feared a loss, they pressed for Summary Judgment without trial, and managed to win on that basis. In the Marik case, that ploy did not work.

You see, when going to court, you do not always find justice served. There are many variables; for example, expertise of lawyers, etc. As I have said in a previous post, exaggerations, misrepresentations, and every sort of sin is commented by attorneys in order to win their arguments. It is not unlike some of what we see being perpetrated on this forum from time to time.

In our case, the GC has "gone for the throat" for lack of better words. They have wanted to make an example of CSDA so that none ever think to cross them. They have spent a huge amount of SDA constituency contributions in order to kill a "straw man."

[ClubV12]

It appears, from my research, that the word "Adventist" is trademarked. Regardless of the opinions of counsel on whether a suit would or wouldn't hold up, it DID hold up in the end. Appeals were denied, the ruling stands.

Not being mean Pastor Chick, just stating what seems to be rather obvious at this juncture.

[Pastor_Chick]

Speaking about Fruits.... would be interested in learning more of what you are doing in Uganda.. I saw a bit of the health work on a blog.

Have made a couple of trips there, almost 20 years ago.

I still check the New Vision and the other paper everyday.

There are some tough areas there. Is your work in the Country or in one of the cities?

re you able to provide aids medicine??

(Off-topic, but...)

We do medical missionary work where the vulnerable people are -- city, country, village. Miracles are following the believers. God is good, all the time.

AIDS gives us no problem. CANCER, no problem. Dis-ease is not a problem for YAHWEH, as all Christians should know.

As the reputation of God's natural way spreads, we become very busy. We are now treating a cancer patient in London with God's blessing.

I use all of my retirement benefits to fund the projects. Yes, additional funding and volunteers would be useful, but let God supply as He desires.

Thank you for asking.

[Stan]

I do not think that is what it looked like initially, I think it was changed over the years, correct?

Quote:

Legal documents have been filed with the USPTO stating that the General Conference Corporation makes "no exclusive claims" to the term "Adventist." The recent attempts by the GC legal department cannot hold up in court. They merely threaten people who are using "Adventist" because most will not bother to hire legal counsel to defend their case -- money is a factor, of course.

Just because it was filed does not make it law.

HOWEVER, I do not believe the have exclusive rights to using the word Adventist in every instance, only the situations they have trademarked it for.

Ministry was trademarked for the Magazine Ministry. That is so someone can not impersonate them. They do not have it trademarked of titles in books etc. If a person had a book called Ministry in Seattle etc, they could easily use that.

[Stan]

Re Uganda, people have spoken with me before about purchasing soccer balls for schools, is there still a need for such in rural Uganda? AND do you have access to them?

[Pastor_Chick]

It appears, from my research, that the word "Adventist" is trademarked. Regardless of the opinions of counsel on whether a suit would or wouldn't hold up, it DID hold up in the end. Appeals were denied, the ruling stands.

Not being mean Pastor Chick, just stating what seems to be rather obvious at this juncture.

Club,

I am not "mean" to say you are a computer programer and race-car enthusiast. You are NOT an attorney. AND, you have some experience that causes you to think you know more than you really know.

I have studied trademark law for 20 years and am not an attorney either, but I know what is legal and what is not. There are CLASSES of trademarks and service marks. If I opened a "Seventh Day Adventist Barber Shop," the GC could do little to take the name from me, because it is NOT in a class where they are protected.

The "Adventist" mark is protected more in the medical field than in the class for "conducting religious observances and missionary services." For the religious class, the GC signed an affidavit saying they made "no exclusive claims" to the term. I was at the USPTO and saw the file.

You have NOT read the briefs thoroughly enough to understand our case properly. I will not take space here to explain all the particulars, but suffice it to say, the GC was able to gain special sanctions against me because I refused to leave Africa for "forced mediation" on the terms "SDA" and "Adventist." Be careful how you judge another man's servant. When you know all the facts and have been to the cross, then you can judge righteously.

[Pastor_Chick]

Re Uganda, people have spoken with me before about purchasing soccer balls for schools, is there still a need for such in rural Uganda? AND do you have access to them?

Of course, there are desires for soccer balls almost everywhere. Whether they would be allocated and distributed properly, that is another question.

Yes, I have access to many districts, but I do not endorse competitive sports. I march to the beat of a different Drummer.

[Stan]

OK, I would not want you to cross that line, I understand.

[Stan]

Sorry, I did not realize it was theGC who filed that, that does make a difference.

[Pastor_Chick]

I do not think that is what it looked like initially, I think it was changed over the years, correct?

Quote:

Legal documents have been filed with the USPTO stating that the General Conference Corporation makes "no exclusive claims" to the term "Adventist." The recent attempts by the GC legal department cannot hold up in court. They merely threaten people who are using "Adventist" because most will not bother to hire legal counsel to defend their case -- money is a factor, of course.

Just because it was filed does not make it law.

HOWEVER, I do not believe the have exclusive rights to using the word Adventist in every instance, only the situations they have trademarked it for.

Ministry was trademarked for the Magazine Ministry. That is so someone can not impersonate them. They do not have it trademarked of titles in books etc. If a person had a book called Ministry in Seattle etc, they could easily use that.

Stan,

You seem to understand trademark/service mark law better than Club.

Now, if you will go back to the TTAB decision of 1996, when Stocker and Perry petitioned the USPTO to have the SDA trademark terminated, you will find in the legal brief a footnote saying that the GC does not claim exclusive rights in the name "Adventist." I wondered about that and went to the USPTO to verify it. It is part of the legal record and has not been changed.

Now, if you try to open a medical center or hospital under the name "Adventist...," you cannot prevail.

[ClubV12]

"...some experience that causes you to think you know more than you really know."

Pastor Chick, thats why I prefaced my statement with, "it APPEARS". I have limited knowledge on the subject, but I do have some. I've been personally involved in the law making process, some of which was also trademark/tradedress laws.

I've also posted examples like Stan did, examples of "fair use". It's tricky where you cross the line, and I've stated that. "Fair use" examples could fill a book.

Does "Adventist" cross the line or is it "fair use" as the name of your church? It APPEARS to have crossed a line. It aint a barber shop or a book or a reference to somebody else. What we DO know, some part of the name your church was using was in FACT illegal, as ruled by the court.

Which part was it? Well, it APPEARS that the use of "Adventist" may be the specific phrase that raised the question. Or was it 7th Day? Or the name in it's totality?

It is misleading to say that anyone, any where, any time can use whatever trademarked name they want. They can't, there are restrictions,,,, as I've mentioned in previous posts.

[Naraiel]

"For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly [nominally]; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly [true obedience]; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."Romans 2:28-29

"Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!" John 1:47

"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads...These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men,and in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God." Rev 14

"And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed."

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee. Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name... To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Rev 3:8-10,12,21

What did Christ and Israel overcame in their human flesh?A/ Sin, known sins.

Has the Current SDA Body truly repented from its sins? or Have it continued to reject the light it has received?

Quote:

“One thing is certain: Those Seventh-day Adventists who take their stand under Satan’s banner will first give up their faith in the warnings and reproofs contained in the Testimonies of God’s Spirit.” [Last Day Events, page 177]

And again Ellen White writes in Testimonies for the Church, Vol.5, page 83:

"The [sDA] church cannot measure herself by the world nor by the opinion of men nor by what she once was. Her faith and her position in the world as they now are must be compared with what they would have been if her course had been continually onward and upward. The [sDA] church will be weighed in the balances of the sanctuary. If her moral character and spiritual state do not correspond with the benefits and blessings God has conferred upon her, she will be found wanting...If her talents are unimproved, if her fruit is not PERFECT before God, if her light has become darkness, she is indeed found wanting."

No one should tell other faithful Adventist believers to call themselves by another name, specially when they live up to the light of what that name meant to represent? In other words, when they live up to the very light the SDA Body has been rejecting since 1888?

Christians SDAs [inwardly] cannot steal something that does not belong by Divine Right to nominal christians[outwardly]. But that's right, the SDA corporation doesn't acknowledge a Divine Authority anymore. Today, only it acknowledges earthly authorities ruled by unholy men, human policies, and a counterfeit image of Christ.

Does the Bible describes the Church of Christ as one who persecute and manipulates fallen powers, Cesar's sword, to defend Christ's Reputation and Holy Kingdom, and one who claim to own "a name" inspired and given by God to those who were being faithful to the pure Adventist faith, at the time?

"Jesus answers to all, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence."

"And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest's, and smote off his ear. Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Mathew 26:51-52

Quote:

Christ was a Seventh-day Adventist, to all intents and purposes. Medical Ministry, Page 50

If any religious Body's words and actions DO NOT longer reflect Christ's words and actions, then that body not longer partakes from Christ's Spirit. It has another Head that doesn't seem to be Christ's.

ONLY GOD can judge who are real SDAs, the same principles applies to Christians.

[ClubV12]

"...you don't acknowledge a Divine Authority anymore."

Actually, that could be said of the CSDA with equal force, the divine authority being the Seventh-day Adventist church, God's church on earth.

Your arguments that the church has apostized and should be abandoned is heretical in my opinion. I see nothing to indicate YOUR call the church was rejected and thrown out in 1888. A subject that remains a very close study of mine. I am very familiar with the details, the quotes, the people, the history, the politics and political climate of that time (Sunday laws were a serious National issue). And yet, I do not, CANNOT conclude God threw away His church, not yet, not now. You are running ahead of the Lord in this regard.

[Pastor_Chick]

"...some experience that causes you to think you know more than you really know."

Pastor Chick, thats why I prefaced my statement with, "it APPEARS". I have limited knowledge on the subject, but I do have some. I've been personally involved in the law making process, some of which was also trademark/tradedress laws.

I've also posted examples like Stan did, examples of "fair use". It's tricky where you cross the line, and I've stated that. "Fair use" examples could fill a book.

Does "Adventist" cross the line or is it "fair use" as the name of your church? It APPEARS to have crossed a line. It aint a barber shop or a book or a reference to somebody else. What we DO know, some part of the name your church was using was in FACT illegal, as ruled by the court.

Which part was it? Well, it APPEARS that the use of "Adventist" may be the specific phrase that raised the question. Or was it 7th Day? Or the name in it's totality?

It is misleading to say that anyone, any where, any time can use whatever trademarked name they want. They can't, there are restrictions,,,, as I've mentioned in previous posts.

Club,

I will say it one more time. You have NOT read the briefs thoroughly. You do not know enough about trademark/service mark law to aptly conceptualize what happened in our case.

Briefly, we lost on what is called the potential for "initial consumer interest confusion." There was NO confusion established over the course of 17 plus years, but ONLY the possibility of some "consumer" being "initially interested" in our "products and services." (The Court admitted that a consumer would not likely "consume" our "products and services" by accident.) "Initial interest confusion" is a part of trademark law that is difficult to overcome when you are up against a "strong mark" and without a $250,000 law firm. ($250,000 is just the retainer fee to begin the defense process.)

I began as a PRO SE litigant and finally had to hire a couple of lawyers who believed in our "religious liberty" stand (one was Baptist and the other was Catholic). It was NOT "Adventist," but "Seventh-day Adventist" that the Court ruled on. "Adventist" alone has NEVER been litigated before a judge or jury.

Had I cooperated with the "forced mediation," and then failed to reach an agreement with the GC attorneys, "SDA" and "Adventist" would have been settled by a jury trial. I did not have the money to travel back and forth from Africa and pay a trademark attorney for litigating that portion of the case. We had already LOST our name by "Summary Judgment." The ancillary issues were no longer a factor to us.

[Naraiel]

The real issue here is,

Which authority are the SDA members acknowledging?

Christ's or the world's,

Which spirit is leading the SDA leaders and members?

Christ's Holy Spirit, or a worldly spirit.

Which mentality are the SDA members accepting?

The mind of Christ, or a carnal mind?

Which gods are the SDA members worshipping (following)?

The Holy "I AM" Living God described in the Bible or "some innacurate mental image of what you think" Christ and the Father are.

I don't believe the Living God of the Bible teaches SDA Christians to iniciate lawsuits against their neighbors, much less on religious matters, neither He has authorized us as christians to use Cesar's sword (any civil law), to defend His Kingdom's Reputation, but instead He tell us to love our enemies as ourselves. 1 Cor 6 & 13

By Divine Authority, any faithful Adventist has the right to call himself a Seventh day Adventist if they are walking according to the light He has give to them, even if they don't belong to the nominal SDA organization.

The Question is: Do you really trust (rest) that the Almighty is more than able to protect His Church in Earth from any threat without the need of any human intervention,or worldly inventions?

The fruit of this unbelief, this spurious sabbath, was revealead clearly when the SDA leaders trademarked the SDA name. Yes, the SDA Corporation claims to own the name, and the right to use it, but by what Authority? By earthly authority only. For there is nothing in the Bible or the Testimonies that show us any Divine Authorization to do "worldly alliances", it doesn't matter how much "human or fearful reasoning" people use. Christians live in the world but are not from the world.

In trust, rest and love there is not fear.

[Stan]

Naraiel

Would be it so difficult to get their own name?

[Naraiel]

I appreciate your reply and I understand your point of view, but like I said before, the root of the issue is not about convenience, avoiding conflict or pressing the issue just for fun.

If the SDA Body would have trusted God as their ONLY protector to save them from any threat or concern, etc, They would have not trademarked the name "SDA" in the first place, they would have not looked for "worldly alliances", They would have rested and waited for God's salvation.

If the SDA Body would have not trademarked the "SDA" name in the first place, all these lawsuits would have been avoided.

If Creation Seventh day Adventists, in this case, have indeed received Divine instructions to keep their testimony "Creation Seventh day Adventist" until the end, they are subject by conscience to the light they have received.

Who are we to intervene on matters of conscience, I would say like Gamaliel,

"Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." Acts 5:38-39

How can we suggest to any person, christians, or faithful Adventist to go against their own consciences, tempting them to sin, for the sake of avoiding a conflict that in the first place was iniciated by the disobedience of others?

"Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." James 4:17

That's why when a church looks for worldly alliances, employing civil power, it can't be restored to her previous state, it becomes a persecuting power until the end. The SDA pioners warned us about this.

Now, if we defend the SDA organization errors, we will be held accountable for their sins, and actions against others.

As Christians we need to have a clear conscience before God and men.

"I cannot choose but adhere to the word of God, which has possession of my conscience; nor can I possibly, nor will I even make any recantation, since it is neither safe nor honest to act contrary to conscience! Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise, so help me God! Amen." — Martin Luther

SDAs are not only accountable before God for walking according to the Bible's light, but also to the light God has given us thru the Testimonies. If Creation Seventh day Adventists or any other person are accountable to God for more light they have received, we can't ask them to go against their conciences.

because faithful Adventists want to.

[ClubV12]

Look, making excuses about how you "didn't really loose" because.... to use your words, is a "rabbit hole". You DID loose.