GC Files a Lawsuit

[Gregory Matthews]

The General Conference Cooperation has filed a lawsuit against a company who has been making Pathfinder supplies for 37 years which were purchased by Pathfinder clubs and local Conferences.

See:

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2017/03/31/general-conference-corporation-sues-pathfinder-shirts-llc

More information as to the legal issues of this case may be obtained from:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/15373497/The_General_Conference_Corporation_of_SeventhDay_Adventists_v_Pathfinder_Shirts,_LLC_et_al

The above is a website that provides information related to litigation for a fee.  So, unless you pay the fee, you will not be able to access the specifics of the case.  But, the free information that is available on the above website is of value, in my opinion.

For those who want further information as to the details of the case, the following information will assist in researching this  litigation:

Title:  The General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists v. Pathfinder Shirts, LLC et al

Court:  Florida Middle District Court

Case #  6:16-cv-01375

Judge:  Roy B. Dalton,  Jr

Date of Litigation:   July 29, 2016

As a point of information:  People who want to research court cases may often find the best source of information to be at:   http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov

Registration is required to search cases on this website.  Such searching may be free.  But, small charges may be made, on a per page basis, to view and/or print the documents.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I believe that this litigation is interesting and I do not predict  how it will be resolved.  Litigation is always complex and in my opinion, one should nto predict how a judge will decide.

I can remember a time when Adventist nomenclature was attached to seemingly everything--to include a public Adventist laundry and dry cleaners!  Truly the denomination needs to protect its trademarks.

But, I also believe that certain such trademarks have legally passed into the so-called "Public Domain" and therefore are not protected.  This is an argument that is made by the defendants in this case.  Whether or not they will be able to sustain this argument is not clear to me.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

What is your documentation for your statement that they use tithe dollars for this lawsuit?

The GC has funds that are not from tithe.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

As I stated the GC has    much funding that does not come from tithe.

I have not made a statement as to the source of the money used because I do not know.

You made a direct statement as to the source.  You should either document it, or tell us that your statement was based upon pure speculation and without any foundation in fact.

As I do not know and have not made a direct statement as to the source of the money, it is not up to me to identify a source.  Any such would on my part be pure speculation, and without documentation, just as was your statement.

 

[debbym]

i am appalled that the church is asking money from them to give permission to sell at a profit.

if they just pay for the license they can sell them....  i may be mistaken but it does look like the church wants a cut from the sell of items with the church logos and Pathfinders name and logo.

they did this for a long time and of a sudden they are being forbidden. hmmm...

[CoAspen]

The interesting part is that the 'trademarks' were allowed to be used for a long period of time without a 'cease and desist' order. So the the question is, why now?

Are the profits such that it makes more sense  to go after them now? The offer of licensing, what was that cost  going to be?

[phkrause]

I'm with the Lillards in this!! I can understand when the church takes people to court over name infringements, but this, this is as Wanderer says "The church is acting ridiculous in this matter.!"

And also as has been mentioned by CoAspen, "why now!!" Which was my first thought!!

[Gregory Matthews]

For those who wish to know more about the legal issues of this case and  the specifics of the litigation, I have added to the opening post information that you may need to further research this case. 

There is a rule in litigation that one goes all out to win.  It is of interest to me that the GC is  doing exactly that in that is has five (5) different lawyers who are representing the interests of the GC in the Florida court.  Of course there are more in the GC legal department who are involved.

 

[debbym]

This business is supporting the organization.   This business  is publicizing the church emblems that are communicating  by symbols and widening that circle of communication in nothing but positive communications.  The laborer is worthy of his hire.

This must be very disturbing to the business owners, they need prayer.  Nothing good could come from destroying this business.  They have serving the organizations needs for a long time.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

I understand the legal issues that cause the denomination to believe that  it must litigate.  I can not say that such a decision is wrong.  But:  

I happen to believe that there is merit in the position of the defendants that certain SDA trademarks exist in the so-called public domain.  I have said from day one that I did not believe that the SDA Church could successfully defend certain trademarks against a lawyer who fully understood the historical use of those.  However, regardless of the merit of this aspect of my belief, I do believe there is merit in the positon of the defendants that they may have a right to use what they are using.

In addition, I believe that there is something that can be learned from the enforcement practice of the denomination:

There exists today, both in the United States and Internationally a denomination known as the Seventh-day Adventist. Reform Movement.  That denomination publicly   uses the following which have been trademarked by the SDA  denomination.

*  Seventh-day Adventist & Seventh-Day Adventist

*  Adventist

* SDA

That denomination continues to freely use those items, I believe, because both it and the SDA denomination know that no litigation against it would ever be successfully sustained.

I also remember the case against SDA Kinship, in which the judge ruled against the denomination.  I do believe that there are major differences between the Kinship case and this Pathfinder case.  Therefore, one should not attribute the basis of the  Kinship ruling to apply to the Pathfinder case.    But, the Kinship case demonstrates that the alleged right of the SDA denomination to its trademarks is not absolute and has the potential to be breached.

 

 

 

[phkrause]

In my estimation at this point in time, is the fact that since 1980s they didn't have a problem? What does that mean or say?? Now they have a problem???

[debbym]

3 hours ago, phkrause said:

In my estimation at this point in time, is the fact that since 1980s they didn't have a problem? What does that mean or say?? Now they have a problem???

and those running this business are to my knowledge faithful adventist church members.   maybe not for long now...

[Gregory Matthews]

I understand and I considered that point before I added it to the OP.

[B/W Photodude]

8 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

There exists today, both in the United States and Internationally a denomination known as the Seventh-day Adventist. Reform Movement.  That denomination publicly   uses the following which have been trademarked by the SDA  denomination.

*  Seventh-day Adventist & Seventh-Day Adventist

*  Adventist

* SDA

Ad·vent·ist
a member of any of various Christian sects emphasizing belief in the imminent second coming of Christ.

adventist
One who believes in the Second Advent (usually known as the Second coming) of Jesus; a millenarian.

Adventist
A member of any of various Christian sects emphasizing belief in the imminent second coming of Christ.

Ad·vent·ist
A member of any of several Christian denominations that believe Jesus's Second Coming and the end of the world are near.

Many different  sites define Adventist as groups believing in a Second Coming and using the "Adventist" name. Just a bit overdoing it to try and trademark the name "Adventist" name as it has been used for well over a hundred years by a number of different groups.

Adventist
CHRISTIANITY
Adventist, member of any one of a group of Protestant Christian churches that trace their origin to the United States in the mid-19th century and that are distinguished by their emphasis on the belief that the personal, visible return of Christ in glory (i.e., the Second Coming) is close at hand, a belief shared by many Christians. 
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Adventism

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01166a.htm
Evangelical Adventists (the original stock)
Advent Christians
Seventh Day Adventists
The Church of God
Life and Advent Union
Age-to-Come Adventists

I think the lawyers need to go back and revise their petition to the courts.

I even know one SDA pastor who was raised in the Advent Christian church and became an Adventist then Adventist pastor without going to SDA theology schools.

[phkrause]

4 hours ago, debbym said:

and those running this business are to my knowledge faithful adventist church members.   maybe not for long now...

And that would be sad!!

[phkrause]

On 4/3/2017 at 0:19 AM, The Wanderer said:

IDK

What doe's "IDK" stand for?

I'm guessing that the I=I, the D=Don't and the K=?? Care?

[LynnDel]

I Don't Know.

[LynnDel]

This whole issue just makes me sad. John the Baptist and Jesus had the right attitude.

[Dr. Shane]

The Pathfinders is a brand the denomination has been building for a long time but especially in the past 20-30 years.  It sounds to me like the defendants got some bad legal advice when they decided not to sign a contract with the GC when it was first offered.  The Adventist church put thousands of dollars into developing and maintaining the Pathfinder program.  Here in Texas, Pathfinders is huge.

[debbym]

the adventist church is not a business, and not in competition here.  I imagine the business tithes.  I am sure this would not be mentioned in the case...  but if they tithe the church receives money from their business.  adventist hospitals are run separate from the church, but they use the church name, do they have to have a license to do so?  i am really ignorant on these things.

[Gregory Matthews]

Debbym:

The trademarks belong to the denomination.  The internal parts of the denomination do not have to obtain a license in order to use those trade marks.   IOW, a local Conference has an automatic right to use the trademarks without obtaining a license.  However,  the segment of the organized denomination that trademarked those  logos does retain the right to control their use.  As such it could prohibit a Conference form using the trademarks in any specific manner.

As to the SDA hospitals:

If the SDA hospitals are considered an internal part of the SDA denomination the above would apply.

I could argue a case in which I would suggest that the SDA hospitals would need to have a license in order to use the trade-marked logos.  In this case the denomination could grant such a license for the sum of one (1) dollar and under whatever conditions that it wanted to establish.  In view of the fact that a GC President has publicly ask that SDA hospitals have some form of the SDA name in the name of the hospital, it should be clear that the denomination would not require that the hospitals pay much of a fee for a license.

I trust that this provides an answer to your question.

 

  

[Gregory Matthews]

As I like to read and study legal decisions by the courts, I have a Pacer account.  I have printed off the amended complaint, filed on December 3, 2016.  This 28 page document, along with 359 pages of exhibits was filed on that date.  I have not reviewed the exhibits as I have not considered them to be critical to my understanding and I did not want to pay the fee for that amount of material.       Pacer documents are low cost, but not free.

What have I learned from this 28 page (104 paragraph) document?

*  The legal basis for the trademarks and copyrights.

*  That the GC has worked for four (4) years to settle this case without going to trial.

*  That the GC has not requested financial damages.  However, in my opinion, the Court is neither prohibited from granting such financial damages nor is  the GC is prohibited from requesting, at trial, financial damages.

*  The GC is requesting a trial by a jury.  I am surprised by this. 

*  Due to the hundreds of pages, which total more than I have listed, of documents that have been filed with the Court, that GC is spending a good sum of money to litigate this case.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

The following is what the General Conference is requesting:

A. That the defendants be permanently enjoined from all acts of trademark infringement.

B. That the defendants be permanently enjoined from all acts of copyright infringement.

C. That the defendants transfer ownership and control of the domain name "www.pathfindershirts.com" to the General Conference.

D. That the Plaintiff [the General Conference] be awarded whatever relief the Court would find to be just and proper.

NOTE: The above is not an exact copy of what the GC is requesting. Rather, I have briefly summarized what they are requesting in my words.

[Gregory Matthews]

Trivia items of information that interested me:

*  The original fee to file this civil case was $400.00.

*  The Court that is hearing this case has published a 136 page document that lists the rules that the all lawyers who represent clients must follow in actions before that court.  If you want to read it, see:

 http://www.flmd.uscourts.gov/forms/USDC-MDFL-LocalRules12-2009.pdf

 

[Gregory Matthews]

For information on the lawyers involved in this case:

The General Conference is represented by:

http://www.gray-robinson.com/attorneys-professionals/jason-a-zimmerman

Quote

GrayRobinson is a full-service corporate law firm with 300 attorneys and consultants throughout 13 offices across Florida. Our attorneys provide legal services for

Fortune 500 companies, emerging businesses, lending institutions, local and state governments, developers, entrepreneurs and individuals across Florida, the nation and the world.

 

 

The defendants are represented by:

https://www.flbarattorneys.com/attorney/87288/coleman-washington-watson

The lead attorney graduated from law school in 2009 and was admitted to the Florida Bar in December of 2010.

Does anyone have a sense as to the differences between the representation provided the GC and that provided the defendants?

 

I have a close friend who as a senior partner in a law firm who had made his millions (literally) in Real Estate law and I got to know him well as he transitioned from the practice of law to that of a hospital chaplain, over a four (4) year period.  Every page that left his law firm was reviewed, after it had been written, by two (2) senior members of the firm.  That process did not come cheap.    I am reminded of this as I read the description of the law firm that represents the General Conference.