Forum name

[tall73]

This is a place for folks to discuss the name change from Seventh-day Adventist to Adventist since we can't discuss it in the threads in the traditional section due to their FSG's.

 

[tall73]

Some initial thoughts, in no particular order:


A. The GC has not objected to the use of the name on CF that I can see. The move seems to be one of caution given the regulations. They did object to the logo usage previously.

B. They have raised issues with other sites. Perhaps Stormy can confirm that they did on Black SDA.

C. Adventist is the preferred abbreviation:

http://www.adventist.org/world_church/name/index.html

The abbreviation: Adventist. In communication about the church, the preferred abbreviation of the name is that of "Adventist."

 

[JonMiller]

If there was a seventh-day adventist forum, without qualifier, and I wasn't allowed to post in it, I would complain.

In the current naming scheme, I have no interest in posting in the traditional adventist forum.

JM

 

[tall73]

Now for the part that would seem the core issue. The Adventist website outlines who may use the name:

1) Existing Entities. Church entities that have denominational status and are included in the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook at the time of adoption of this policy and procedure may use the trademarks in their names and ministries.
2) New Denominational Administrative Entities. New administrative entities, such as missions, conferences, union conferences, and divisions that are approved by the General Conference Committee may use the trademarks in their names and ministries.
3) New Denominational Institutions. When new institutions apply for denominational status (see NAD C 47), the Retirement Plan Committee shall refer all applications of institutions using one of the trademarks to the Office of General Counsel for clearance before the application is approved by the Retirement Plan Committee.
4) Local Churches. Local churches and companies may use the trademarks in their ministries once their status has been approved by the local conference or mission.


None of these first four apply.



Now number five:




5) Lay Groups. Lay and professional groups must apply for written permission to the Office of General Counsel. The articles and bylaws of such groups must indicate that they are independent of the Church and are not its agents as well as meet other criteria. After receipt of written notice of General Conference approval, such groups may use the trademarks solely for noncommercial purposes.




A. CF is not an Adventist lay group. I don't think they are non-commercial either, but I can't really comment on that.


B. Neither is the the traditional Adventist section or the progressive section a group that has bylaws to indicate independence. Therefore we would be ineligible for approval according to the guidelines.



It seems therefore they are not allowed to use the trademarked name for their section, nor would we be allowed to use it for ours.

 

[CaDan]

The GC does have a registered trademark for the word "Adventist," but the claim is much smaller than its claim for the phrase "Seventh-day Adventist".

If someone could point me to information regarding "Black SDA," it would be appreciated.

 

[JonMiller]

He is providing information for those interested, such as myself. As someone who has been involved in the past, he still has interest as such.

JM

 

[StormyOne]

Here is the thread that covers what happened at BSDA....

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=14556

Initially the GC contacted Calvin and told him there was a problem and how he could apply to get permission to use the name.

here is the other thread that this issue was discussed...

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11136

 

[tall73]

The GC does have a registered trademark for the word "Adventist," but the claim is much smaller than its claim for the phrase "Seventh-day Adventist".

If someone could point me to information regarding "Black SDA," it would be appreciated.

Stormy should be along soon. He would have the best info for you. EDIT: He is quick! I see he already posted.

Other trademark cases I have heard about:

A. SDA Kinship--you seem to have a handle on that one.

B. Creation SDA- just do a search on trademark, Seventh-day Adventit and you will get a whole slew of ugly web sites discussing that one.

C. Eternal Gospel church--A conservative local congregation that the GC disagreed with on methodology, etc.

http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/0991165967/index.html.en

You can do a web search on them for more information. Apparently their rigorous ad campaigns which featured the Pope were too much for the GC to stomach, though they were publishing Adventist views and were Adventist members.

 

[tall73]

It is the GC that trademarked its name and according to the letter they sent to Black SDA monitors the use of its name. So whatever issue folks have it should be with the GC.

Lee's organization does not qualify to even apply for usage rights for the name. It seems Lee and his staff came up with the best solution that they could, still allowing the Adventist abbreviation which is less problematic legally.

 

[StormyOne]

you are correct Tall and at BSDA we have been discussing if the GC says no what our alternatives (name wise) might be....

 

[woobadooba]

The point that is being made is that the SDA trademark can't be used to solicit donations. They made it very clear that if the webmaster ceased to do this that they would reconsider giving him a license.

Another thing to point out here is that BlackSDA represents the website, not a sub-forum within a website. Thus there is no relevance to what CF is doing to us (Seventh-day Adventists), because:

a. We simply represent a sub-forum within a website
b. Our sub-forum is not soliciting donations in the name of the SDA church

There are no justified excuses here to warrant what has been done, and the name should be restored ASAP!

 

[tall73]

Links regarding the Eternal Gospel congregation case:

http://www.stepstolife.org/php/view_article.php?article_id=531

http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-T/Perez-1022.pdf


Look under trademark for a lot of articles regarding the various cases.
http://www.sdadefend.com/MINDEX-T.htm

 

[woobadooba]

A Trademark violation is only warranted when a person attempts to make a profit from it without permission from the person that owns it, or uses it as a means to misrepresent what it stands for while claiming to be an official representative of it.

I could put up a website with the domain, Applereview.com (if it were available), and Apple wouldn't be able to do a thing about it to force me to take it down, UNLESS I was misrepresenting their product in some way while claiming to be a representative of their company, and thereby marring their name, or trying to make a profit from using their name without their permission.

So I could put up a website that offers a review on their products, and would have every legal right to do so. If they would hold me accountable for using that domain name, then they would have to also go after the company that sold it to me. The point being, they can't do that successfully because they have no legal grounds to do so!

So it is the same with the name, 'Seventh-day Adventist'. When it comes to names there is more flexibility, but it isn't the same with images.

 

[CaDan]

Stormy should be along soon. He would have the best info for you. EDIT: He is quick! I see he already posted.

I read the threads on BlackSDA, but I don't see what the outcome was. I also see that the GC has complained to another website.

Some of the names and avatars look familiar.

Other trademark cases I have heard about:

A. SDA Kinship--you seem to have a handle on that one.

B. Creation SDA- just do a search on trademark, Seventh-day Adventit and you will get a whole slew of ugly web sites discussing that one.

C. Eternal Gospel church--A conservative local congregation that the GC disagreed with on methodology, etc.

http://news.adventist.org/data/2001/0991165967/index.html.en

You can do a web search on them for more information. Apparently their rigorous ad campaigns which featured the Pope were too much for the GC to stomach, though they were publishing Adventist views and were Adventist members.

I have read SDA Kinship and Perez (IIRC, that is Creation SDA). I have read the briefing in McGill (Eternal Gospel). Somebody owes me about four bucks for using my PACER account to pulling the McGill docket.

 

[tall73]

I read the threads on BlackSDA, but I don't see what the outcome was. I also see that the GC has complained to another website.

Some of the names and avatars look familiar.



I have read SDA Kinship and Perez (IIRC, that is Creation SDA). I have read the briefing in McGill (Eternal Gospel). Somebody owes me about four bucks for using my PACER account to pulling the McGill docket.

Lol. I think the Perez one was the Eternal gospel, and the McGill is the Creation, but you got a handle on it otherwise. See Lee for the four bucks

 

[tall73]

I read the threads on BlackSDA, but I don't see what the outcome was. I also see that the GC has complained to another website.

Some of the names and avatars look familiar.

Which other site? I get confused on all of them after a while. 3ABN was going after three forums also for talking about them. It seems to be a trend.

 

[CaDan]

The point that is being made is that the SDA trademark can't be used to solicit donations. They made it very clear that if the webmaster ceased to do this that they would reconsider giving him a license.

Another thing to point out here is that BlackSDA represents the website, not a sub-forum within a website. Thus there is no relevance to what CF is doing to us (Seventh-day Adventists), because:

a. We simply represent a sub-forum within a website
b. Our sub-forum is not soliciting donations in the name of the SDA church

There are no justified excuses here to warrant what has been done, and the name should be restored ASAP!

Those are fact questions. Expensive to determine.

 

[tall73]

The point that is being made is that the SDA trademark can't be used to solicit donations. They made it very clear that if the webmaster ceased to do this that they would reconsider giving him a license.

Another thing to point out here is that BlackSDA represents the website, not a sub-forum within a website. Thus there is no relevance to what CF is doing to us (Seventh-day Adventists), because:

a. We simply represent a sub-forum within a website
b. Our sub-forum is not soliciting donations in the name of the SDA church

There are no justified excuses here to warrant what has been done, and the name should be restored ASAP!

A. CF does solicit donations.

B. CF does not meet the qualifications for being an Adventist lay ministry. Nor have they obtained permission to use the name. Neither CF as a whole or your sub-forum have bylaws to clarify the relationship.

C. I think the GC making a trademark on the name was silly from the outset and that you all should be allowed to use the name. But the GC doesn't seem to be soliciting my opinion. But that has been my opinion, and we talked it over in a thread before in the Adventist section at one time when a Creation SDA guy popped in. . I also think they should not sue conservative churches when they don't like their ad campaign.

But I don't blame Lee for not wanting to put his site at risk. It was the GC that trademarked and the GC that pursues it.

 

[CaDan]

C. I think the GC making a trademark on the name was silly from the outset and that you all should be allowed to use the name. But the GC doesn't seem to be soliciting my opinion. But that has been my opinion, and we talked it over in a thread before in the Adventist section at one time when a Creation SDA guy popped in. . I also think they should not sue conservative churches when they don't like their ad campaign.

Actually, I don't blame the GC for registering a trademark. the GC does have valuable properties, especially in the medical field.

 

[woobadooba]

A. CF does solicit donations.

CF solicits donations in the NAME OF CF, not in the name of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

Thus your point is utterly moot!

Moreover, the SDA forum is a sub-forum WITHIN a website, not the website itself. And even if it were the website itself, as long as the webmaster isn't trying to solicit funds in the name of the Trademarked entity while not being officially linked to them as a licensed rep., then there is no grounds for legal action.

B. CF does not meet the qualifications for being an Adventist lay ministry. Nor have they obtained permission to use the name. Neither CF as a whole or your sub-forum have bylaws to clarify the relationship.

You obviously don't know much about e-commerce. And I am not going to try to explain the rules to you AGAIN. Just go back and read my previous post.

C. I think the GC making a trademark on the name was silly from the outset and that you all should be allowed to use the name. But the GC doesn't seem to be soliciting my opinion. But that has been my opinion, and we talked it over in a thread before in the Adventist section at one time when a Creation SDA guy popped in. . I also think they should not sue conservative churches when they don't like their ad campaign.

The GC has every right to trademark the name, and were not wrong for doing so. As I had said before, a person could take the name and claim to be an official representative of it, while totally misrepresenting it. The trademark serves as a protective force to keep that thing from happening, or at the very least to stop it when it does occur.

But I don't blame Lee for not wanting to put his site at risk. It was the GC that trademarked and the GC that pursues it.

Lee is not at risk for LISTING the name as a sub-forum. And Dan knows this.