First Independent Church of Scientology

Hmmm . . . doesn't look like the Mormon Mother Ship went to court in order to defend its trademarks so not quite sure how that applies in this case.

They have tried, a number of times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_(word)#Trademark

Even though they lost/abandoned the US trademark in 2007, they keep trying to hit the reset button:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78161091
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/church-day-saints-trademark-word-mormon/story?id=23988596
http://www.law360.com/articles/550306/mormon-dating-site-settles-trademark-spat-with-lds-church

On their site, they still pretend that they do have a trademark on Mormon:
https://www.lds.org/legal/terms?lang=eng&_r=1

Not sure how they're doing in Canada:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-utah-polygamist-idUSKBN0EW10120140621

Aaah - I stand corrected. Thank you. Silly me only looked at the linked Wikipedia article.

I got a laugh out of an article that said it was okay for Mormons to call themselves Christians, but not okay for FLDS (child brides) to call themselves Mormons.

Sure, whatever.

BREAKING: Trademark applications by First Independent Church of Scientology Suspended

Both the text only and the graphic trademark applications by the First Independent Church of Scientology have been suspended pending adjudication of earlier filed applications by the Church of Scientology. A search of the earlier filed applications (86336991, 86336984, 86339615, 86336978, 86335732, 86336981, 86336980, 86336979, 86335735, 86338294, 86339617) show they all are Church of Scientology trademark applications concerning Scientology Media Productions (863369

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86817837&docId=SUL20161018114807#docIndex=0&page=1





http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86905517&docId=SUL20161018114639#docIndex=0&page=1






.

First Independent Church of Scientology Technical Standards Committee (TSC) has agreed upon a Bridge. More Developments.

The Religious Liberty League (RLL), the animating force behind the First Independent Church of Scientology, has made its first blog post in six months. That post will be linked, excerpted and discussed a bit below.

Religious Liberty League: A Giant Step Forward

http://religiouslibertyleague.org/a-giant-step-forward/

* * * * * BEGIN FIRST EXCERPT * * * * *

Legal Research Project Done

Our team of legal experts completed an exhaustive research project we had commissioned for the purpose of determining the best way to proceed with the First Independent Church of Scientology and its objective to practice the religion of Scientology outside the suppressive confines of the church. As our readers know, we took this route once it became clear that internal reform was impossible.

The value of this accomplishment cannot be overstated. It is indeed a “giant” step. For now we have identified the exact barriers and the most efficient ways to overcome them. It was neither easy nor cheap. We spent weeks screening the lawyers, and months educating them on the subject itself. One of the first questions posed to us helps illustrate the difficulty. “If you have all the materials and have studied them, why can’t you just teach Scientology yourself? Why do you need to use the materials themselves?”

“Well, you see, Scientology study doesn’t work that way,” was our initial reply.

While the lawyers were coming up to speed on the nuances of Scientology services, they hit the law books. They studied each and every case, not only those brought by C of S but all those brought by other break-away churches that were sued for trademark and copyright breaches. Such an approach has never been undertaken previously.

The end result is a state-of-the-art legal analysis of laws of trademark and copyrights in the context of the free practice of a religion, specifically the Scientology religion.

Based thereon, we have formulated both short-term and long-term strategy.

The short-term strategy consists of two steps, one of which has been taken and we can now report it. (We will report the second step as soon as we take it – which is imminent.)

* * * * * END FIRST EXCERPT * * * *

Comment: None

* * * * * BEGIN SECOND EXCERPT * * * * *

Responses Filed with Patent & Trademark Office

[SNIP]

Just in. The USPTO ruled on the response. Trademark applications denied. At the same time, the applications were suspended pending resolution of new trademark applications using the word Scientology filed by the church in 2014. This means our 6-month deadline to appeal the decision is waived. See Ruling on Responses.

* * * * * END SECOND EXCERPT * * * * *

Comment: The FICS's Responses to the USPTO were noted, linked and set forth here weeks ago. See prior posts above.

As discussed in prior posts above, the use of the word "denied" in the above excerpt is simply wrong. The FICS's trademark applications were not "denied." Their adjudication was suspended pending the adjudication of trademark applications previously filed by the Church of Scientology. The RLL recognizes this when it states, "the applications were suspended pending resolution of new trademark applications using the word Scientology filed by the church in 2014." As a result, I have no idea why the RLL used the word "denied."

* * * * * BEGIN THIRD EXCERPT * * * * *

Step Two – Copyrights

Step two of our short-term strategy regards the use of copyrighted LRH materials by FICS. We invested a lot of time and money into determining the best way to proceed in this regard, and feel we have identified the exact correct way.

We have always known the way not to do it. Contrary to the false ideas of many in the independent field, flagrant use of copyrighted and trademarked materials is not viable. Sure, some people are doing it and getting away with it. But they are vulnerable to legal actions and are therefore not safe and secure. No effort of magnitude, especially an organization, can afford to act so naively or cavalierly.

* * * * * END THIRD EXCERPT * * * * *

Comment: None

* * * * * BEGIN FOURTH EXCERPT * * * * *

The Bridge to Total Freedom
The Technical Standards Committee (TSC) has agreed upon a bridge based on LRH references. It is currently being designed for display and publication. Once the artistic layout is completed we will publicize it on this blog and invite your comments based on written, verifiable source references that the TSC may have overlooked. No opinion, verbal or hidden data lines.

* * * * * END FOURTH EXCERPT * * * * *

Comment: None

Yes it can.

Is it really that good? No.

I win.

Merrell Vannier speaking for the Religious Liberty League has reiterated the need for a solution for the copyright problem so the First Independent Church of Scientology can serve as a Central Org.

http://religiouslibertyleague.org/a-giant-step-forward/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Merrell Vannier October 29, 2016 at 8:55 pm

Yes, training is being done in the field. Carry on. Those doing so are subject to copyright infringement actions and many independents have been given cease and desist letters. The Church can engage in selective enforcement and are not likely to go after every Tom, Dick & Harry, nor does it make sense. An analogy would be the copying of online music. The music industry did not and cannot go after everyone, but it did selective go after some and, for sure, went after the organized ones, e.g., Napster. What we are trying to do is create a Central Org. Standard Tech can only be maintained and have longevity through a Central Org. Hope this helps.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

First Independent Church of Scientology granted US 501(c)(3) Tax Exempt Status.

Religious Liberty League: FICS Granted Tax-Exempt Status

http://religiouslibertyleague.org/fics-granted-tax-exempt-status/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Another milestone toward the establishment of the First Independent Church of Scientology (FICS) has occurred. It has been granted tax exemption under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3).

See the Official Notice.

Distinction With Religious Liberty League

To remind our readers, Religious Liberty League (RLL) fashions itself to be the Department 20 for the “Religion” of Scientology. That is, RLL’s main mission is to protect the free practice of the religion independently of the church of Scientology – at least until that entity is reformed and brought into alignment with the religion.

The establishment of FICS is a project of RLL. The entities are separate and autonomous, and are intended to remain that way.

RLL was previously granted tax-exempt status, as we then reported on this blog.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Go to PDF for better copy:

http://www.religiouslibertyleague.org/Tax%20Exempt%20Ltr_FICS.pdf

How a new independent ‘church’ is trying to wrestle away control over the word ‘Scientology’

By Scott Pilutik, November 9, 2016

Quote:

Many years ago an attorney who represented the Church of Scientology’s intellectual property interests (and whom I’ll not name out of professional courtesy) told me in a moment of frankness that the one thing that kept him awake at night was the possibility of a court one day finding the trademarked term “Scientology” generic. He didn’t have to explain his fear. The commercially disastrous implications of a court finding any mark generic is well understood.

By definition a mark can only be deemed generic after it has become extremely famous and thus lucrative. This cause and effect is easier to see in the retail universe, where, for example, Bayer’s “Aspirin” had become so ubiquitous a headache remedy that consumers started using the term descriptively, and the term was soon found by a court to be generic. Bayer was a victim of its own success and suffered commercially when its competitors began to sell their own brands of “aspirin.”

Though trademark law is most often wielded by commercial entities, the primary purpose of trademark law is as a consumer benefit, to protect the public from becoming confused. The benefits of trademark law are accordingly extended to non-profits as well. If you accidentally donated to “Unisef” instead of “Unicef®” you’d be understandably pissed off. Similarly, religious entities are afforded trademark protection as well, and Scientology has taken full advantage of that.

Of course, if you’ve been following along you’re already quite aware that Scientology is only ostensibly religious and primarily commercial. Their interest in amassing a huge trademark portfolio isn’t to prevent consumer confusion, it’s to prevent competitors from muscling in on their con. And Scientology’s business side is structured in line with this precept–it can set egregious prices precisely because it can crush competition with the help of intellectual property lawyers. If Scientology processes were evaluated in a true religious marketplace, auditing prices might be forced way down. Yes, Scientology is also doing many things outside intellectual property law to discourage competition, but if its trademarks are found generic a key component of its business strategy would suddenly be outside its control. And this terrifies its lawyers.

I’ve been waiting for years for someone in the Independent community to show up and challenge the Scientology® mark, and that day finally arrived approximately one year ago, November 12, 2015, when owner James R. Fonda and attorney Raymond R. Tabandeh applied with the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for the mark “FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY” (Nov. 12, 2015, serial number 86817837).

Continued here:
http://tonyortega.org/2016/11/09/ho...estle-away-control-over-the-word-scientology/

I'll add that someone pointed out to Scott Pilutik what I had already pointed out above:

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

UPDATE: It’s been brought to my attention that there is an error in my article regarding filing dates. Because the matter was only suspended, response deadlines are moot. My mistake, I apologize.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

The California system has upgraded their site to show the chief corporate officers.

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail/03880588?SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=First Independent Church of Scientology&SearchSubType=Keyword

Merrell Vannier was listed as the CEO, changed now.

Thanks. I uploaded an image to the ESMB thread on this topic in case anyone had any comments there. I figured I might as well cross-post it here:

Officers of the First Independent Church of Scientology

https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail/03880588?SearchType=CORP&SearchCriteria=First%20Independent%20Church%20of%20Scientology&SearchSubType=Keyword




HT - DeathHamster on WWP: https://whyweprotest.net/threads/first-independent-church-of-scientology.131077/page-4#post-2598436

its hard to overstate my enturbulation

Hello fake scientologist

hello fake kitty cat

So you are a Scientologist Maria Sklodowska ? The real thing ?

I will defend you on this website for your beingness, but I will debate you on your points of view.

I am as much a Scientologist as you are a feline.

So you are not, why back up some Hubbard views than ?

You might think that I am your greatest Enemy but I will relentlesly defend your view even if and actualy if it is not mine.

My parents tought me to be that way.

I am with this guy

Why would I? Partly because I too would

And partly because Standard (and non-standard) LRH Technology is so relentlessly and unselfconsciously absurd I feel an urge to mock it up, sometimes.

Why are you on this website at all than ?

P.S.
I also sometimes find myself in support of Independent Scientology, because it offers a path away from the institutional clustermindfuck of the Church. As Mike Rinder shows us, It is so much easier to walk away from the Indies.

I met Terril Park in Amsterdam in 2010, We had a nice get togheter. Even shared a meal fit for a javan prince with him.

Perhaps there is a language problem. Let me rephrase:

"because Scientology makes no sense, I hang out at IAS functions with signs quoting Hubbard to remind people it is all a sham."
or
"Omdat Scientology is grappig, ik moet lachen."

Waarom ben je hier?

You have shown your collours

enjoy your ban

Wat is dit dan, ben je gek of zo ?

yes, I am.

On what grounds?

No grounds, you are a trooper

I met Terril at a protest in DC. He made me nervous, to be fair. I usually find his posts on WWP and elsewhere to be annoying.
Despite this, I think he is a good person, and I'm glad that he is out of Scientology, and still trying to help people.

I come from a long line of psychiatrists and psych patients. "Crazy" is not an insult that bothers me.

you mean, because I'm OSA?

meh

doh!

meh, my mind wasn't even close to that clusterfuck

The third name of my grandfather was Maria, he was a chatolic

He said bums twice.