THE thread for discussing the forum name change

[CaDan]

Hello.

The change in the name of this forum has created a lot of controversy. That controversy has created a lot of threads. Rather than have the discussion spread over many threads in many forums, this is the place to discuss the past name change and proposals for future name changes.

s/ CaDan
Administrator

 

[TrustAndObey]

I'm still confused as to why we can't use the name if the GC of the SDA church didn't pull the use of the name, only the use of the logo.

CF defines membership of a specific church's forum here as a person that agrees with the Statement of Faith for that church.

The people that don't agree with the SOF of our church have said so openly, and shouldn't be considered members of the Seventh-day Adventist forum here on CF.

Bases are covered for CF, so I guess I don't see what the problem is.

 

[CaDan]

I'm still confused as to why we can't use the name if the GC of the SDA church didn't pull the use of the name, only the use of the logo.

CF defines membership of a specific church's forum here as a person that agrees with the Statement of Faith for that church.

The people that don't agree with the SOF of our church have said so openly, and shouldn't be considered members of the Seventh-day Adventist forum here on CF.

Bases are covered for CF, so I guess I don't see what the problem is.

Right now, we have done it to be cautious. Prior to the forum split, CF did little to enforce orthodox SDA beliefs. Therefore, the situation was more analogous to that in the SDA Kinship decision, where a group for gay Adventists was found not to be infringing the GC's trademark. Once CF started doing a little more to enforce orthodoxy, it ended up in a situation more like Perez where a different church was found to be infringing.

The trademark situation is sort of counter-intuitive--the less orthodox the group, the less likely it is to be infringing upon the mark because the possibility of confusion is less.

I have to stress that the current naming situation is temporary and tentative.

 

[tall73]

Since I do not want to violate your FSG's I am starting a thread in the progressive section to discuss the name change. .

http://christianforums.com/t7135216-forum-name.html#post45881701

 

[TrustAndObey]

Right now, we have done it to be cautious. Prior to the forum split, CF did little to enforce orthodox SDA beliefs. Therefore, the situation was more analogous to that in the SDA Kinship decision, where a group for gay Adventists was found not to be infringing the GC's trademark. Once CF started doing a little more to enforce orthodoxy, it ended up in a situation more like Perez where a different church was found to be infringing.

The trademark situation is sort of counter-intuitive--the less orthodox the group, the less likely it is to be infringing upon the mark because the possibility of confusion is less.

I have to stress that the current naming situation is temporary and tentative.

Okay, we'll just have to be patient because it does feel discriminatory that we're the only ones with an "Anti" forum attached to our church, AND we're the only forum that has had our name taken away from us.

If it's temporary then I know we can wait.

I really don't like the use of the word "mark" like that.

 

[CaDan]

The GC did not demand CF change the forum names. If I have given the impression that the GC made such a demand, I apologize. The GC only demanded that CF stop using the "book and flame" graphic image.

Other denominations also hold trademarks in various words and symbols. As far as I know, no other denomination has demanded that CF stop using its trademarked logo. That was one of the factors that went into deciding to be careful about the GC's trademarks.

It is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy. You could set up a local church that was completely compliant with the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, but if you used the name "Seventh-Day Adventist Church" without permission, the GC could assert a Lanham Act claim against you.

Right now, CF Administration is being cautious. CF Administration does not want to be another test case in how generic the term "Seventh Day Adventist" is or how much protection the GC has in that mark. Some of those issues will be decided when the McGill case goes to trial in June. Some may be resolved in other ways.

 

[woobadooba]

Dan,

The bottom line here is that the GC didn't order the change to take place when the trademarked image was ordered to be removed. Thus they obviously don't have an issue with its use.

And even if they did, they would address CF first, as they did with the trademarked image, before taking any kind of legal action against CF.

So I am not buying this, Dan.

I don't see this as a measure of caution, but as a slap in the face, because we have always been looked upon as 'outsiders', even though some have pretended to accept us. In fact, I have inside knowledge about how certain CF staff members were plotting to get rid of us altogether, as several staff members see us as being the same as JWs and Mormons (aka a cult). So don't tell me about caution!

It would be best for CF to restore the name to avoid further problems .

The GC did not demand CF change the forum names. That is correct. If I have given the impression that the GC made such a demand, I apologize. The GC only demanded that CF stop using the "book and flame" graphic image.



Other denominations do hold trademarks in various words and symbols. As far as I know, no other denomination has demanded that CF stop using its trademarked logo. That was one of the factors that went into deciding to be careful about the GC's trademarks.

It is not a matter of orthodoxy or heterodoxy. You could set up a local church that was completely compliant with the 28 Fundamental Beliefs, but if you used the name "Seventh-Day Adventist Church" without permission, the GC could assert a Lanham Act claim against you.

Right now, CF Administration is being cautious. CF Administration does not want to be another test case in how generic the term "Seventh Day Adventist" is or how much protection the GC has in that mark. Some of those issues will be decided when the McGill case goes to trial in June. Some may be resolved in other ways.

 

[CaDan]

The terms Traditional Adventists and Historic Adventists are often used interchangeably by the critics of Seventh-day Adventism and others when referring to a small, loud and extremely legalistic faction in the Seventh-day Adventist church.

If you want two Seventh-day Adventist forums, then consider the fact that the Seventh-day Adventist church is strongly divided by those who believe in the Seventh-day Adventist movement and those who don’t. There is no practical difference between the avowed enemies of the Seventh-day Adventist movement and those Adventists that spend all their free time criticizing Ellen White and her prophetic ministry and writings, as if their striving to overthrow a principal founder of the Seventh-day Adventist church is a lucrative career path.

To call the avowed enemies of the Seventh-day Adventist movement "Progressive Adventists" is not a neutral point of view.

No names are truly neutral. They all express a point of view.

I understand the name "Traditional Adventists" was imposed on y'all. If y'all can think of one that does not potentially infringe on the trademarks of the GC, there would not be a problem implementing it.

 

[CaDan]

Dan,

The bottom line here is that the GC didn't order the change to take place when the trademarked image was ordered to be removed. Thus they obviously don't have an issue with its use.

Not quite correct. What the actions of the GC have done is provide grounds for a potential affirmative defense of waiver. That, however, might need to be litigated at great time and expense.

And even if they did, they would address CF first, as they did with the trademarked image, before taking any kind of legal action against CF.

That has been the GC's policy in the past. That does not mean it will be the policy in the future.

So I am not buying this, Dan.

I don't see this as a measure of caution, but as a slap in the face, because we have always been looked upon as 'outsiders', even though some have pretended to accept us. In fact, I have inside knowledge about how certain CF staff members were plotting to get rid of us altogether, as several staff members see us as being the same as JWs and Mormons (aka a cult). So don't tell me about caution!

Yes, there probably are some folks on Staff who believe that the SDA is a cult. That, however, had nothing to do with the name change. Think about it for a moment--if those folks had suddenly gained the upper hand, then these forums would simply cease to exist and y'all would be routed to Unorthodox Theology. CF Administration would not be expending time and effort to keep the forums alive at all.

It would be best for CF to restore the name to avoid further problems .

Please refrain from making threats.

 

[woobadooba]

Not quite correct. What the actions of the GC have done is provide grounds for a potential affirmative defense of waiver. That, however, might need to be litigated at great time and expense.

You know the rules of Trademarked names

Unless a person using a trademarked name is claiming to be an official representative of that entity, while not having a license to do so, then there is no violation.

Also, unless a person is trying to make a profit off a Trademark name then there is no grounds for legal action.

People have the right to use names; but they don't have the right to misrepresent them while claiming to be representatives of them.

Trademarked images are not regarded the same. There is more flexibility with names than with images, which explains why the GC didn't tell CF to take down the name along with the image. They have no right to do that unless CF is trying to profit from the name.

But you should already know this!

Please refrain from making threats.

Don't give me any reason to then.

 

[Pythons]

I don't see this as a measure of caution, but as a slap in the face, because we have always been looked upon as 'outsiders', even though some have pretended to accept us. In fact, I have inside knowledge about how certain CF staff members were plotting to get rid of us altogether, as several staff members see us as being the same as JWs and Mormons (aka a cult). So don't tell me about caution!

It would be best for CF to restore the name to avoid further problems .

Being viewed as outsiders is a result of doctrines that are intended to separate and foster that understanding.

I'm certainly not a fan of the "new way", I for one liked the old forum better. The General Conference could be looking at certain threads wherein prominent Traditional Seventh-day Adventits on this forum reject certain fundamental beliefs and believe it would not be in the best interest of the Church Militant to have the identifying mark of the church next to outspoken members who reject her authority from God on doctrinal matters.

Part of running a business (if CF could be considered that) is being "proactive" and keeping the company out of trouble, instead of being "reactive".

If there "is" a legal reason or just perceived liability the end result would be the same in that Mgmt would want to protect the site from trouble before it actually became trouble.

 

[CaDan]

You know the rules of Trademarked names

Unless a person using a trademarked name is claiming to be an official representative of that entity, while not having a license to do so, then there is no violation.

Also, unless a person is trying to make a profit off a Trademark name then there is no grounds for legal action.

Two responses:

1. That ignores dilution claims.
2. It is arguable that CF is engaged in a similar enterprise as the GC.
3. CF does make (or at least attempts to make) a profit.

People have the right to use names; but they don't have the right to misrepresent them while claiming to be representatives of them.

More correctly, they do not have the right to appropriate or damage the value of the mark.

Trademarked images are not regarded the same. There is more flexibility with names than with images, which explains why the GC didn't tell CF to take down the name along with the image. They have no right to do that unless CF is trying to profit from the name.

Actually, it is because images are more abstract and are easier to link to a specific good or service.

But you should already know this!

Don't give me any reason to then.

Yes, I do. I am litigating a trademark (common law, non-registered) case right now.

 

[woobadooba]

Dan, the bottom line here is that the SDA forum is just simply a LISTED entity WITHIN a website of many forums, which gives SDAs a place to go to communicate with each other.

It is not an entity that LEE is using to solicit funds in the name of the SDA church, so as to make a profit off the trademark. Nor is he claiming to be an official representative of the SDA church.

So you are just rambling here, because there is no violation for the use of the name; and if there were, the GC would have made that clear already when they ordered CF to take the Trademarked image down.

They didn't order this because they know that there is no legal grounds to do so.

So please do not take me for a fool. One doesn't have to be an Attorney to know what his rights are.

Two responses:

1. That ignores dilution claims.
2. It is arguable that CF is engaged in a similar enterprise as the GC.
3. CF does make (or at least attempts to make) a profit.



More correctly, they do not have the right to appropriate or damage the value of the mark.



Actually, it is because images are more abstract and are easier to link to a specific good or service.



Yes, I do. I am litigating a trademark (common law, non-registered) case right now.

 

[CaDan]

Dan, the bottom line here is that the SDA forum is just simply a LISTED entity which gives SDAs a place to go to communicate with each other.

Correct.

It is not an entity that LEE is using to solicit funds in the name of the SDA church, so as to make a profit off the trademark. Nor is he claiming to be an official representative of the SDA church.

The first is disputable. The second is correct.

ETA: Actually, the public perception of the second is disputable as well. To the extent CF enforces posting requirements based upon SDA beliefs, people might believe CF has some sort of claim to be official. That may give rise to some sort of dilution claim.

So you are just rambling here, because there is no violation for the use of the name; and if there were, the GC would have made that clear already when they ordered CF to take the Trademarked image down.

That is speculative. CF would be able to assert an affirmative defense of waiver, but it is unknown whether that defense would be successful.

They didn't order this because they know that there are no legal grounds to do so.

Speculative.

So please do not take me for a fool. One doesn't have to be an Attorney to know what his rights are.

All our lives would be easier if we had definitive answers about two things:

1. The intent of the GC;
2. The extent of protection the courts will grant to the GC's trademark.

We might be able to get an answer to number one and we will get some answer to number two after the McGill case goes to trial in June. Until we know more, CF Administration is playing it safe.

 

[Pythons]

Wow! Now that's some news.

 

[oldsage]

Correct.



The first is disputable. The second is correct.

ETA: Actually, the public perception of the second is disputable as well. To the extent CF enforces posting requirements based upon SDA beliefs, people might believe CF has some sort of claim to be official. That may give rise to some sort of dilution claim.



That is speculative. CF would be able to assert an affirmative defense of waiver, but it is unknown whether that defense would be successful.



Speculative.



All our lives would be easier if we had definitive answers about two things:

1. The intent of the GC;
2. The extent of protection the courts will grant to the GC's trademark.

We might be able to get an answer to number one and we will get some answer to number two after the McGill case goes to trial in June. Until we know more, CF Administration is playing it safe.

It is probable not all courts see things the same either because the way CF is using the name is along the lines of Nominal use but from my reading of Trademark law it might only be allowed in areas of news media when identifying an entity. There are no rulings which I see in computer forums this will be allowed.

Maybe someone should contact the SDA Trademark Committee and ask them if the name would be allowed as a link on the forum to identify where members of the SDA can go to fellowship together and ask them to respond in writing with a letter with their letter head allowing the use of their name.

Because the name as it stands is just too generic because other churches fall under this category:

The Handbook of Denominations in the United States, 12th edn., describes the following churches as "Adventist and Sabbatarian (Hebraic) Churches": (membership numbers are for the United States only, not worldwide membership)

* Advent Christian Church General Conference, founded 1860 with 25,277 members in 302 churches in 2002 in America
* Branch Davidians, founded in the 20th century, a breakoff of Shepherd's Rod
* Christadelphians, founded 1844 with an estimated 25,000 members in 170 ecclesias in 2000 in America
* Church of God General Conference, founded 1921 with roots back to the 1840s, with 7,634 members in 162 churches in 2004 in America
* Church of God (Seventh Day), founded 1863 with an estimated 11,000 members in 185 churches in 1999 in America
* Church of God and Saints of Christ, founded 1896 with an estimated 40,000 members in approximately 200 congregations in 1999 in America
* Jehovah's Witnesses, previously known as International Bible Students before 1931, founded circa 1870, with 1,029,652 members in 11,930 congregations in 2003 in America. "Russell was deeply influenced by Adventist thought" (p. 268)
* Seventh-day Adventists, founded 1863, with 15.6 million baptized members worldwide in 2007[2])
* Worldwide Church of God, founded 1933 with an estimated 63,000 members worldwide in 2004


It would seem to me this generic name would allow all these groups to call this section "home"

Blessings,
Chris

 

[synger]

If you changed it to "Adventist and Sabbatarian Churches" you would need to include the progressives back to this form. Is this what you really wish? We've gone through a lot of discussion over the past few weeks to try to clarify how best to deal with the differences between the Traditional Adventists and the Progressives. I'm not sure including all sabbatarians into the forum would address those concerns.

 

[Your Neighbor]

If there cannot be a "Seventh-day Adventist" section, I suggest a "Seventh-day Adventism" section.

I would say there are (at least) three groups that come under that heading:

1- SDAism of Ellen White and the pioneers of the SDA church (using the 1872 25 Fundamental Principles that remained until the change in 1931!)
2 - "books of a new order" General Conference SDAism of the (unvoted) 1931 22 statements of belief which evolved into the (voted) 1980 27 statements of belief (plus the latest voted addition in 2005 to make a total of 28)
3- Even weirder "books of a new order" SDAism of those that don't go by either group above! This group is more in harmony with other sabbatarian churches, whether they like it or not, or even Sunday churches!

I propose a forum section that allows the first two groups to be together: SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM

 

[reddogs]

If there cannot be a "Seventh-day Adventist" section, I suggest a "Seventh-day Adventism" section.

I would say there are (at least) three groups that come under that heading:

1- SDAism of Ellen White and the pioneers of the SDA church (using the 1872 25 Fundamental Principles that remained until 1931!)
2 - SDAism of the (unvoted) 1931 22 statements of belief which evolved into the (voted) 1980 27 statements of belief (plus the latest voted addition in 2005 to make a total of 28)
3- SDAism of those that don't go by either group above! This group is more in harmony with other sabbatarian churches, whether they like it or not, or even Sunday churches!

I propose a forum section that allows the first two groups to be together.

Are you a Adventist as you dont have a Adventist icon, are you aware of the new FSG that to be a member of this forum you agree with the 28 fundimental beliefs to post in this forum........

Statement of Faith:

Members of this forum agree with the Official 28 Fundamental Beliefs of Seventh-day Adventist Church and hold to the Adventist message.


Please read the new FSGs: Forum-specific guidelines for the Seventh-Day Adventist Forum before posting as they outline the new guidelines that everyone needs to follow.

Red
SDA Forum Moderator