At The Cross Roads

[honorthesabbath]

Perhaps you have not seen the list about the various different Adventists, if the G.C can live with em all, why can't you. You seem too eager to cut people off who think differently from you. Contrary to what you want you don't have a monopoly on the name. And sometimes changes occur because ordinary members i.e we have discussions. Or do you think everything the church practises right now has God's blessings?

MOI--I was wondering if you would answer my question I posted to you about the gays taking the Boy Scout name.

 

[moicherie]

MOI--I was wondering if you would answer my question I posted to you about the gays taking the Boy Scout name.

Is it illegal for them to do so and have they done so?

 

[sentipente]

Is it illegal for them to do so and have they done so?

Here is the relevant comment from Honor:

So let me ask you Moi--should the gays be able to take that name and make it their own if they are ruled against in a court of law and then decide to start their own BOY SCOUTS? NO--a thousand times NO!

(emphasis mine)

 

[moicherie]

Here is the relevant comment from Honor:

This scenerio is irrelevant there is no Progressive Adventist church taking a Traditional Adventist church to court.
So what is your point honor? The Adventist church is big enough for all sorts of wings, perhaps you need to take it up with God why you seem to have problems fellowshipping with your fellow Adventists who may think differently from you. Do you have a personal copyright to the church's name?

 

[StormyOne]

She doesn't but the church does have the name "Seventh Day Adventist" trademarked and they don't take kindly to it being misused.... maybe the GC should be informed...

 

[sentipente]

She doesn't but the church does have the name "Seventh Day Adventist" trademarked and they don't take kindly to it being misused.... maybe the GC should be informed...

The present usage falls under fair use. The name merely indicates where CF members who are members of the Seventh-day Adventist church may be found assembled.

 

[mva1985]

She doesn't but the church does have the name "Seventh Day Adventist" trademarked and they don't take kindly to it being misused.... maybe the GC should be informed...

Stormy,

The name SDA is like other brand names out there. For instance Google. They do not like people using the phrase "I googled it" because it then becomes a generic term meaning to search rather then representing their brand.

I believe this is why the SDA church has trademarked their name - so that it cannot just be associated with any number of groups of people.

Again my 2.5 cents

 

[StormyOne]

Stormy,

The name SDA is like other brand names out there. For instance Google. They do not like people using the phrase "I googled it" because it then becomes a generic term meaning to search rather then representing their brand.

I believe this is why the SDA church has trademarked their name - so that it cannot just be associated with any number of groups of people.

Again my 2.5 cents

I am not questioning why the church trademarked their name, I am merely saying that they have, and suggesting that perhaps the ramifications need to be considered IF the GC general counsel becomes aware of people on this forum wanting to be known as the "official" Seventh Day Adventist forum....

 

[mva1985]

I am not questioning why the church trademarked their name, I am merely saying that they have, and suggesting that perhaps the ramifications need to be considered IF the GC general counsel becomes aware of people on this forum wanting to be known as the "official" Seventh Day Adventist forum....

I see now.

 

[mva1985]

I am not questioning why the church trademarked their name, I am merely saying that they have, and suggesting that perhaps the ramifications need to be considered IF the GC general counsel becomes aware of people on this forum wanting to be known as the "official" Seventh Day Adventist forum....

I think that maybe overstepping the bounds by claiming "official" status - especially when there are many Adventist forums out there.

 

[StormyOne]

I think that maybe overstepping the bounds by claiming "official" status - especially when there are many Adventist forums out there.

as I said previously though, many of the adventist forums are not using seventh day adventist or SDA in their name, and if they have, they either have gotten permission to do so, or have been asked to stop using the tradmark names....

 

[djconklin]

Perhaps you have not seen the list about the various different Adventists, if the G.C can live with em all, why can't you.

Adventists in general, yes. But, not Seventh-day Adventist. It is when people try to use the name and to attck the established beliefs of the church then they are sued over the use of the name. Imagine trying to use the name "Marlboro" on a brand of marijuana--those who tried such a thing would get sued for infringement.

 

[djconklin]

Originally Posted by honorthesabbath
MOI--I was wondering if you would answer my question I posted to you about the gays taking the Boy Scout name.

Is it illegal for them to do so and have they done so?

It was fairly obvious that the question was a hypothetical one.

 

[StormyOne]

Adventists in general, yes. But, not Seventh-day Adventist. It is when people try to use the name and to attck the established beliefs of the church then they are sued over the use of the name. Imagine trying to use the name "Marlboro" on a brand of marijuana--those who tried such a thing would get sued for infringement.

not quite, it is if anyone is using the name Seventh Day Adventist and have not gotten expressed permission to use that name that the church moves to protect its name.

 

[djconklin]

I have not seen that done. If a reporter is writing an article about the SDA church they don't need to get permission. If a paper started a column on the church they wouldn't need to get permission, either (as I understand that part of the law).

 

[sentipente]

It was fairly obvious that the question was a hypothetical one.

What was hypothetical about the question, or were you simply ticked at the response?

 

[moicherie]

It was fairly obvious that the question was a hypothetical one.

I don't reside in the US so for all I know this was a real case. 'Fairly obvious' had nothing to do with it.
When someone writes 'there is a lawsuit pending' I assume there is one.

 

[sentipente]

I don't reside in the US so for all I know this was a real case. 'Fairly obvious' had nothing to do with it.
When someone writes 'there is a lawsuit pending' I assume there is one.

Actually it is based on actual legal issues.

 

[StormyOne]

I have not seen that done. If a reporter is writing an article about the SDA church they don't need to get permission. If a paper started a column on the church they wouldn't need to get permission, either (as I understand that part of the law).

writing an article about the church and using the name as the name of a forum, a business, or a newspaper would be two different things would they not?

 

[StormyOne]

From www.adventist.org

The presence of Seventh-day Adventist churches, offices, and institutions around the world has established a global recognition for the Church. Public perception concerning the worldwide family of Seventh-day Adventists is influenced by the lives of members, by the actions of each organization, by denominationally-identified services and programs, and by the maintenance of aesthetic appeal at all physical properties. The Church has adopted and registered, as a trademark, its official name and logo. All denominational organizations listed in the current Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook are authorized to use, for non-commercial purposes, the registered trademarks ("Seventh-day Adventists," "Adventist," "SDA," or any derivative of such; see GC BA 40 40) and logo, of the Church. The right to use the official name and logo of the Church is accompanied by an obligation to protect these against misuse and misrepresentation.