Copied from [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Bohemian_Gal/sandbox&oldid=640044755 this Bohemian Gal sandbox page for backup.
The Church of the Creator is a Christian-based faith organization located in Ashland, Oregon, which was founded in 1969, as Grace House Prayer Ministry. It took its current name in 1974. [1] The church is notable for achieving protection of its name through legal proceedings rising to the U.S. Supreme Court, and its case is cited in intellectual property law. The church has also operated as Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation.
The church registered trademark for its name in 1987. After a protracted legal battle, which culminated in an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the church was awarded sole usage of the name "Church of the Creator," which previously had also been part of the title of the white supremacist group "World Church of the Creator". That racist [2] group is now known as the " Creativity Movement" and is not associated in any fashion with the Oregon-based Church. [3] The Oregon church, on the other hand, is a "group devoted to racial tolerance". [4]
Church
The church is described in a dictionary of new religious movements as having a "synthesis of New Age thought, Christianity, and Jewish mystical ideas, such as kabbalah and gemiatry. Particular emphasis is given to the archangel Michael and high priest Melchizedek" and the goal of the church is unification of mankind. [5] Chryssides describes the church as having been founded in 1969 "by Dr. Grace Marama (1932-2002) and her husband Rev. Dr. James Germain Uri." [5]
The Church of the Creator received U.S. Internal Revenue Service ruling of non-profit status in 1985. It is also known as Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation - Family of Uri Inc, and as Family of Uri and Church of the Creator. As a church, it is not required to make annual financial filings. [6]
The Uri family included D'Angelica Mariam Uri, James Germain Uri, and Grace Marama Uri. [7] [5]
Name dispute
The church, filing as the Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation, but more commonly known as Church of the Creator, then was headquartered in Ashland, Oregon but had ministries in 20 states. It reportedly "said the similar names and trademarks have left the mistaken impression that their church endorses Hale's racist messages." [8] In 2002, the church, represented by Kirkland & Ellis, [9] won an appeals court ruling, and further in 2003 obtained district judge ruling of $1,000 per day fine to be applied against the Creativity Movement group, because that group still came up in Yahoo and other internet searches. [10] The legal proceedings around copyright for its name included a 7th Circuit Appeals Court ruling in 2002 [11] [12] and a U.S. Supreme Court denial of further review ( certiorari) in January, 2003. [13]
According to academic Steven John Olsen, "generic terms can be combined with other generic or more distinctive terms and the resulting composite term may be viewed in the eyes of the relevant public as distinctive and deserving of trademark protection. This was the situation in Te–Ta– Ma, where the court recognized that “church” alone is generic, but “Church of the Creator” is descriptive. The court reasoned that “Church of the Creator” does not denote the class of monotheistic religions or designate a specific religion for which a denomination belongs, but instead acts as a source identifier to differentiate an individual denomination." [14] [15]
According to David A. Simon, covering religious organizations having confusingly similar marks or names but adhering to opposing ideologies, the "most prominent case in this area is Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of the Creator" (Simon, page 265); he notes that "Religious organizations try to combat the actual-perception problem of truth by using lawsuits to maintain their own identity, and thereby maintain their religious authenticity."(Simon, page 265) He judged that "[t]he court found for the Foundation based on trademark principles, but concerns of authenticity played a role in its decision-making process."(Simon, page 267) [16]
The name dispute litigation is cited in other court cases, e.g. [[United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit] 2010 decision on "General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill". [17]
The case is cited elsewhere, e.g. in a legal blog. [18]
Previous litigation and choice of law firm
The Uris had previous experience with law, in 1992 Oregon appeals court case "Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation v. Vaughan", which involved James Germain Uri, who was not a lawyer, seeking to represent the corporation, which he was not allowed to do. The case was dismissed based on dilatoriness of Te-Ta-Ma in pursuing its claim with proper legal representation. [7] In the later name dispute case, by contrast, the church would use the respected international legal firm Kirkland & Ellis.
Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation was in fact specifically noted for hiring an "experienced Chicago law firm" in its trademark case in a 2006 law journal article about attorneys' fees. [19]
References
- ^ "Church of the Creator". World Knowledge Library.
- ^ religioustolerance.org
- ^ http://www.churchofthecreator.com/
- ^ Brian MacQuarrie (January 9, 2003). "Supremacist Arrested in Murder Plot". Boston Globe. p. B10.
- ^ a b c George D. Chryssides. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. (See Google books excerpt)
- ^ Guidestar (requires free account)
- ^ a b Justia Law case report
- ^ "Church Sues Hale's Group Over Trademark". Chicago Tribune. May 3, 2000. p. 6.
- ^ courtlistener and courtlistener 2
- ^ Shia Kapos, Tribune staff reporter (April 25, 2003). "Hale church fined on trademark; U.S. judge sets penalty until it stops using name". Chicago Tribune. p. C3.
- ^ "Appeals Court ruling" (PDF).
- ^ same ruling at OpenJurist.org
- ^ "Supreme Court denial of certiorari)" (PDF).
-
^ Steven John Olsen. "Protecting Religious Identity with American Trademark Law". 12.
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property: 129.
{{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=( help) - ^ also
- ^ David A. Simon. "Register Trademarks and Keep the Faith: Trademarks, Religion and Identity" (PDF). IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review. 49 (2). (with pages 265-267 exclusively on this case)
- ^ "GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS and General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, an Unincorporated Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Walter McGILL". findlaw.
- ^ Joseph Gioconda (July 15, 2012). "Can Religious Symbols Be Trademarked". Gioconda Law.
-
^ Anne M. Mellen (Spring, 2006). "Comment and Casenote: Awarding Attorneys' Fees Under the Lanham Act: Egregious Litigation Conduct in the "Exceptional Case".
University of Cincinnati Law Review. 74: 1111.
{{ cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) (see [url= https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=74+U.+Cin.+L.+Rev.+1111&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4a80b866d8e1aec58bca7021d7512f77 excerpt])
External links
Copied from [ https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Bohemian_Gal/sandbox&oldid=640044755 this Bohemian Gal sandbox page for backup.
The Church of the Creator is a Christian-based faith organization located in Ashland, Oregon, which was founded in 1969, as Grace House Prayer Ministry. It took its current name in 1974. [1] The church is notable for achieving protection of its name through legal proceedings rising to the U.S. Supreme Court, and its case is cited in intellectual property law. The church has also operated as Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation.
The church registered trademark for its name in 1987. After a protracted legal battle, which culminated in an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the church was awarded sole usage of the name "Church of the Creator," which previously had also been part of the title of the white supremacist group "World Church of the Creator". That racist [2] group is now known as the " Creativity Movement" and is not associated in any fashion with the Oregon-based Church. [3] The Oregon church, on the other hand, is a "group devoted to racial tolerance". [4]
Church
The church is described in a dictionary of new religious movements as having a "synthesis of New Age thought, Christianity, and Jewish mystical ideas, such as kabbalah and gemiatry. Particular emphasis is given to the archangel Michael and high priest Melchizedek" and the goal of the church is unification of mankind. [5] Chryssides describes the church as having been founded in 1969 "by Dr. Grace Marama (1932-2002) and her husband Rev. Dr. James Germain Uri." [5]
The Church of the Creator received U.S. Internal Revenue Service ruling of non-profit status in 1985. It is also known as Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation - Family of Uri Inc, and as Family of Uri and Church of the Creator. As a church, it is not required to make annual financial filings. [6]
The Uri family included D'Angelica Mariam Uri, James Germain Uri, and Grace Marama Uri. [7] [5]
Name dispute
The church, filing as the Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation, but more commonly known as Church of the Creator, then was headquartered in Ashland, Oregon but had ministries in 20 states. It reportedly "said the similar names and trademarks have left the mistaken impression that their church endorses Hale's racist messages." [8] In 2002, the church, represented by Kirkland & Ellis, [9] won an appeals court ruling, and further in 2003 obtained district judge ruling of $1,000 per day fine to be applied against the Creativity Movement group, because that group still came up in Yahoo and other internet searches. [10] The legal proceedings around copyright for its name included a 7th Circuit Appeals Court ruling in 2002 [11] [12] and a U.S. Supreme Court denial of further review ( certiorari) in January, 2003. [13]
According to academic Steven John Olsen, "generic terms can be combined with other generic or more distinctive terms and the resulting composite term may be viewed in the eyes of the relevant public as distinctive and deserving of trademark protection. This was the situation in Te–Ta– Ma, where the court recognized that “church” alone is generic, but “Church of the Creator” is descriptive. The court reasoned that “Church of the Creator” does not denote the class of monotheistic religions or designate a specific religion for which a denomination belongs, but instead acts as a source identifier to differentiate an individual denomination." [14] [15]
According to David A. Simon, covering religious organizations having confusingly similar marks or names but adhering to opposing ideologies, the "most prominent case in this area is Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of the Creator" (Simon, page 265); he notes that "Religious organizations try to combat the actual-perception problem of truth by using lawsuits to maintain their own identity, and thereby maintain their religious authenticity."(Simon, page 265) He judged that "[t]he court found for the Foundation based on trademark principles, but concerns of authenticity played a role in its decision-making process."(Simon, page 267) [16]
The name dispute litigation is cited in other court cases, e.g. [[United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit] 2010 decision on "General Conference Corporation of Seventh-Day Adventists v. McGill". [17]
The case is cited elsewhere, e.g. in a legal blog. [18]
Previous litigation and choice of law firm
The Uris had previous experience with law, in 1992 Oregon appeals court case "Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation v. Vaughan", which involved James Germain Uri, who was not a lawyer, seeking to represent the corporation, which he was not allowed to do. The case was dismissed based on dilatoriness of Te-Ta-Ma in pursuing its claim with proper legal representation. [7] In the later name dispute case, by contrast, the church would use the respected international legal firm Kirkland & Ellis.
Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation was in fact specifically noted for hiring an "experienced Chicago law firm" in its trademark case in a 2006 law journal article about attorneys' fees. [19]
References
- ^ "Church of the Creator". World Knowledge Library.
- ^ religioustolerance.org
- ^ http://www.churchofthecreator.com/
- ^ Brian MacQuarrie (January 9, 2003). "Supremacist Arrested in Murder Plot". Boston Globe. p. B10.
- ^ a b c George D. Chryssides. Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements. (See Google books excerpt)
- ^ Guidestar (requires free account)
- ^ a b Justia Law case report
- ^ "Church Sues Hale's Group Over Trademark". Chicago Tribune. May 3, 2000. p. 6.
- ^ courtlistener and courtlistener 2
- ^ Shia Kapos, Tribune staff reporter (April 25, 2003). "Hale church fined on trademark; U.S. judge sets penalty until it stops using name". Chicago Tribune. p. C3.
- ^ "Appeals Court ruling" (PDF).
- ^ same ruling at OpenJurist.org
- ^ "Supreme Court denial of certiorari)" (PDF).
-
^ Steven John Olsen. "Protecting Religious Identity with American Trademark Law". 12.
Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property: 129.
{{ cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=( help) - ^ also
- ^ David A. Simon. "Register Trademarks and Keep the Faith: Trademarks, Religion and Identity" (PDF). IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review. 49 (2). (with pages 265-267 exclusively on this case)
- ^ "GENERAL CONFERENCE CORPORATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS and General Conference of Seventh-Day Adventists, an Unincorporated Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Walter McGILL". findlaw.
- ^ Joseph Gioconda (July 15, 2012). "Can Religious Symbols Be Trademarked". Gioconda Law.
-
^ Anne M. Mellen (Spring, 2006). "Comment and Casenote: Awarding Attorneys' Fees Under the Lanham Act: Egregious Litigation Conduct in the "Exceptional Case".
University of Cincinnati Law Review. 74: 1111.
{{ cite journal}}: Check date values in:|date=( help) (see [url= https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=74+U.+Cin.+L.+Rev.+1111&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4a80b866d8e1aec58bca7021d7512f77 excerpt])
External links