.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, October 17, 2005


Yep - we're making some noise!

Check out these links thus far!









Love the blog! =:-) It's about time somebody aggressively busted T.C.'s chops! Can I link your site to mine?
Keep up the good work. This site (and others like it) keep those cult dullards and their unbelievably silly beliefs in check.

I too think that Tom Cruise is a fool of universal proportions. And there is little more that needs to be done to prove this than to show his own apeish behaviour of recent months.

Although you're probably already planning it, look into transferring your site to a domain that doesn't fall under the service agreement that Enom.com enforces. Perhaps a nice site based in Sierra Leone or the Cayman Islands would be a good choice.
Hi there,

I've got some help for you. I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure if you have lawyers they mght already know about this or will want to know about this.

To rebutt their ICANN claims, you can quote the "Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy", section 4(c), iii:

c. How to Demonstrate Your Rights to and Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name in Responding to a Complaint. When you receive a complaint, you should refer to Paragraph 5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.


For the violation of United States Patent Office claims, you can quote section 1207.01 (b)(x) (Parody Marks) of the Trademark Manual of Examination Procedures and cite that your site is a non-confusing parody in that people are able to tell the difference between the official Scientology site and your parody site, especially since you have a notice on the front page claiming not to be an offical site and merely satire.

Here is the section:

1207.01(b)(x) Parody Marks

Parody is not a defense to a likelihood of confusion refusal. There are confusing parodies and non-confusing parodies. See J. McCarthy, McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, §31.153 (4th ed. 2004). A true parody actually decreases the likelihood of confusion because the effect of the parody is to create a distinction in the viewer's mind between the actual product and the joke. While a parody must call to mind the actual product to be successful, the same success also necessarily distinguishes the parody from the actual product. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co. v. Novak, 648 F. Supp. 905, 231 USPQ 963 (D. Neb. 1986).

Another example of parody can be found in Columbia Pictures Industries Inc., v. Miller, 211 USPQ 816 (TTAB 1981) (CLOTHES ENCOUNTERS held likely to be confused with CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, for men's and women's clothing); Cf., Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Hogg Wyld, Inc., 828 F.2d 1482, 4 USPQ2d 1216 (10th Cir. 1987) (LARDASHE for pants was not an infringement of the JORDACHE mark).


Likewise, you can also claim US Code: Title 15, 1125

(c)(4) lists your fair use defenses:

The following shall not be actionable under this section:
(A) Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark.
(B) Noncommercial use of a mark.
(C) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

Which is helpful since your site is noncommercial.


(i) In determining whether a person has a bad faith intent described under subparagraph (A), a court may consider factors such as, but not limited to—

(IV) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;

Which is basically the same point as the ICANN reference above.

I hope these points help, but speak with a lawyer about them if you haven't already.

Good luck! Love your site!
Another Link, this time in Germany.:
N24 is a german NewsTV-Station, similar to CNN.

Aside from that, I'm wondering about the Scieno's inability to think before calling up a lawyer.
Scientology tried these tricks before and everytime, it was a PR-desaster.

Keep up the good fight. This site is amazing and much needed/appreciated.
Keep up the good work man. We need more people who not only are willing to speak up, but who are willing to fight.
The scientologists are trying to bring about the antichrist. TomKat's baby will be silent birthed on June 6, 2006 (6/6/06). According to Wikipedia's bio on L. Ron Hubbard, the man tried to bring about the antichrist in the 40s, with the help of a man working at CalTech and a writer named Crowley. But you can be saved from satan if you stop paying attention to all this nonsense (not my nonsense, of course, just scientology's nonsense). The next fifteen years are going to be CRAZY.
bullshit waste oftime...scientology rocks..
You missed one http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_212906.shtml

Rock on!
"bullshit waste oftime...scientology rocks.."

Rocks as in 'rocks in the head'...right?

Sea bOrg or Office of Special Affairs (or both)?

We wogs know how to deal with clams, we boils'em!
One might wonder why why, when these attacks on religion take place against people who practice Scientology, one never sees a defense from the practicing Scientologists. Many years ago, when some critics began to post on the net, church members were asked not to read it and they were encouraged to install software to prevent any members from reading citisism about the current management. Members who did read and post were reprimanded. So today, when these chat sites flame up, there is noone from the Church here to defend their religion neither their beleifs neither L. Ron Hubbard. So the attackers have the full platform. And this is the worse PR. I just want to say here that Tom Cruise only represents himself. He does not represent every person interested in or studying or practicing Scientology. The people who are running the Church, are not L. Ron Hubbard. There is so much missing data and altered data in this site that although humerous, it does not paint any accurate picture of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, or Scientologists. This is a hate group. People who hate lie. And as the saying goes: "There is no greater lier than an angry man".
This is not a hate group. Calling people bigots only serves to stem the flow of discussion and criticism. When you have HollyWeird celebrities campaigning for $cientology it's only natural to question it. I find it hard to trust any religous sects especially when they're such a private and tiered orginization, with an unknown mission.

No $cientologist will out right tell you about Xenu, thetans, engrams, et certa. You have to move up in that orginization before they feel you're ready for indoctrination. I don't have the money, nor do I want to become a $cientologist monk to learn their scifi teachings. It only goes to show how paranoid they are if they will not let their followers hear any outside criticism. Instead of debating thier critics the CO$ only tries to sue, harassm and threating them into submission.

If I ever have any real personal problems I'd go to a psychiatrist any day, over spending hundreds for a $cientology auditing session. I wouldn't trust a $cientologist to feed my cat.
That, and nobody, NONE of the sites criticizing Scientology, outside of playfully mocking the little green men theories, take any issue with their beliefs or religious practices. What people have a problem with are the heavy duty tactics of harassment of anyone who voices any criticism of any kind. Why doesn't Scientology simply answer its critics? Tell us what happened to Lisa McPherson. Respond to questions with reasonable answers about slave labor and people being hassled for trying to leave the church. They don't do this EVER. They do not answer critics. They silence them.

That and that alone is what I object to. Thetans, Xenu, e-meters. Whatever. Believe what you like. Scientologists, however, are not entitled to DO whatever they like, especially if it causes harm.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?