quote:#28 Upon information and belief, and unbeknownst to The Way International until March of 2004, Ro***ge initially utilized the Infringing Domain to offer religious educational/ministerial services under the infringing mark THE WAY OF CHRIST MINISTRY.
It's about the domain name, Pat. You're not The Way International. They are. Give them their domain name.
Raf, why should Pat give them a damn thing? TWI has taken enough from people using that almighty research and teaching ministry. F**k that bunch of plastic ****.
Raf, I don't think Greek2Me was trying to insult you. You've heard the expression, "You can argue/talk till you're blue in the face, and he/she won't listen"? That was how I took it, at least.
Do any of you people, other than Pat, know anything about Trademark Law? No, I don't mean where you make up stuff as you go, but where you actually crack open a law book and study. I am just wondering because there sure seems to be a lot of amateur lawyers on this thread. And no, I am not going to discuss the merits of this case on this public forum.
Good point. Greek, I apologize if I misunderstood you. In fact, I apologize. I'm sure I misunderstood you.
Sadie,
Pat doesn't have to do anything. He posted here because he wants opinions. I gave mine. Jesus taught that if someone sues you for your shoes, give him your coat, too (or something like that). I do think he was using hyperbole, which is exaggerating to a ridiculous degree to make a point. However, what IS the point? The point is not to get entangled in silly legal battles. Pat is NOT The Way International. They are. In my opinion, he should give them their name back and be done with this time-waster of a lawsuit. If he doesn't want my opinion, he shouldn't have started a thread on a public message board.
Mark,
Why the sudden need to have a law degree to have an opinion? My opinion of this is not based on trademark law, it's based on good old fashioned horse sense (as OM would say).
Pat is not the Way International. He owns "thewayinternational.com"
TWI IS The Way International. They do NOT own "thewayinternational.com"
Something's wrong with that picture.
They want the domain name. They should have it.
But as long as Pat sees that position as "bending over" or caving in to a bully, then he will never be rid of this unnecessary legal entanglement, which is diverting his time and attention from the REAL cult-fighting that supposedly got TWI angry with him in the first place.
Well, I wasn’t going to post to this thread again, but I changed my mind.
Mark, there are no amateur lawyers on this thread. Not one of us is practicing law or giving legal advice. Rather, we are discussing matters that Pat, not us, opened up for public discussion. One need not be a lawyer or a law student to have informed, reasoned opinions about those matters.
Rafael and Long Gone, your best advise has been to not discuss the specifics of this suit on an open forum. However, there are specific laws involved with Trademarks if you really care to look into them. Actually reading them gives one a better perspective than relying on common horse sense.
You're misreading me. I did not say I'm relying on horse sense to draw legal conclusions. I don't know if Pat will win or lose in court. Leave that to the judges and lawyers.
What I said was that "my opinion of this" is based on horse sense. In other words, why is Pat wasting his time trying to hang onto this domain name?
If I were TWI, just to get his goat, I would register www.patroberge.com and use it to post information detrimental to his cult information distribution plans.
It's petty. Pat has real energy and resources that he wants to devote to the cause of exposing the truth of TWI. And how does he expend his energy and resources? With this? It's a WASTE.
Pat says TWI is picking on him for criticizing them. Well, I've been criticizing LCM, PFAL and Wierwille for years. Where's my lawsuit? Where's Paw's lawsuit? There's no lawsuit because what we do so clearly falls under free speech. Pat can continue to criticize TWI all he wants without fear of reprisal, once he drops this albatross of a domain name that actually HAS hindered him EXACTLY the way TWI wants it to, because it has diverted him from pursuing the reasonable goal of exposing that no-good outfit for the freedom-hating cult that it is.
O.K. Rafael. I see your point now. Your point is that it is a waste of time for Pat to defend his rights to this domain name. I think whether or not this is a waste of time is up to Pat. I am not going to try to persuade him one way or the other on this. However, I will still support him if he decides to continue with this.
I agree with everything Rafael just wrote concerning Pat wasting his time and actually obstructing his purported purpose. In addition, I think that Pat is both morally and legally wrong in registering and holding the subject domain. I also think that some of his factual representations are wrong and that some of his interpretations of law and statements about legal process (particularly discovery) are bizarre. Now I don’t care one bit about what Pat thinks or does, and won’t say a word about it, if he keeps it to himself. If he posts about it here, I’ll comment as I see fit.
You asked, “Do any of you people, other than Pat, know anything about Trademark Law?” I’ll first point out that Pat doesn’t know as much about law as he represents. Then I’ll point out that several people have shown something that Pat apparently lacks, the ability to understand what they read. For examples, see Zixar and Raf’s posts near the bottom of page 8. There are plenty of others. Finally, I’ll state that relevant laws, rulings, court opinions, and facts are not particularly difficult to look up or comprehend. (At least they’re not difficult for me. According to your post at the bottom of page 7, you didn’t find TWI’s “THE WAY” trademark at uspto.gov. Maybe you missed the detailed instructions I posted on page 5 of this thread.)
BTW, Mark, your first post on this page seems a bit disingenuous, given what you said in that post at the bottom of page 7.
quote: Originally posted by Mark S, bottom of p. 7:
Pat was not able to complete his trademark registration solely because TWI had enough money to keep opposing Pat's trademark. This was not based on right or wrong or a genuine conflict in the trade mark law. Had Pat had enough money for this he would have gotten his trademark.
quote:Mark S. again, his first post on p. 10:
And no, I am not going to discuss the merits of this case on this public forum.
Is that what you mean by disingenuous, Long Gone? Give a guy an opportunity to weigh the merits and come to a conclusion as a conversation progresses. Seems to me he was in on the conversation with the rest of us and decided at some point that the amateur lawyering was a bad idea for everyone. Not disingenuous. Progressive. :)-->
Mark, I didn't catch this line the first few times I read it:
quote:Your point is that it is a waste of time for Pat to defend his rights to this domain name.
You know, there's a built-in legal presumption in that statement: you presume that Pat has a right to the domain name. In THAT, you're being disingenuous. If you're not going to discuss the merits of the case, you should start by not presuming he is right, legally. Pat isn't defending his right to the domain name. He's defending his belief that he has a right to the domain name. That is, after all, the central question in the case, isn't it?
So let's the three of us agree on the one point we have in common: Pat, it's a bad idea to post your legal interpretations and justifications on a message board known to be monitored by the very lawyers who are suing you.
Rafael, I am not going to discuss the legal merits of this suit on this message board. This is not because of a lack of knowledge of trademark law on my part. What I am stating however is that you admit to a lack of knowledge on trademark law, yet you insist on judging the legal merits of Pat's claim to the domain name which Pat owns and The Way Denomination does not. These two do not add up. They are at enmity. One thing we do agree on, however.
quote:So let's the three of us agree on the one point we have in common: Pat, it's a bad idea to post your legal interpretations and justifications on a message board known to be monitored by the very lawyers who are suing you.
Long Gone, as I explained to Rafael, I will not discuss the legal merits of this trademark suit. Furthermore, I wish you would not pretend to know more than you actually do on this subject. Regarding looking up their "The Way" trademark. I am sure it is there because Pat says it is there and he has spent more time on The Way denomination's claim than I have. I am not about to go through the many similar trademarks to find this one at this time. I have a life and an already very active business schedule. However, I did find the trademark in question, "The Way International".
No apology necessary. My remark was as Linda stated and sorry if I derailed a bit. Some of the things you've pointed out in here happen to be excellent advice, imo. Especially the Sermon on the Mount aspect of looking at this thing.
Unbelievably yet truly despicably, we have a christian orginization (at least professing to be, and yes, I am using the term very, very, loosely)) sueing a christian and going to a court of law made up possibly of "unbelievers". The organization has taught publicly against such actions (any sns teachings anyone?) in a supposed "rightly-dividing" of the Scriptures.
Once again, actions do speak louder than words.
What was it Jesus said? oh yeah, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments".
Now what's all this got to do with the legal aspect of this issue? Nothing. As a Christian, or a Christian organization, there really is no "legal" aspect, is there?
4. It was up for sale (see above ad )and TWI didn't buy it
5. PAt is having way too much fun -->
6. Everyone involved is going to spend way over $15,000 in actual lawyer, fees, expenses, time, briefs , motions etc etc etc.
So TWI if you want it (and I know you are out there ) post a bid on this thread.
Because the way I see it after all this discussion and carrying on any judge with half his salt is going to tell all parties to stop acting out and come to an agreement and quit wasting his and the courts time.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
16
22
47
Popular Days
Apr 2
37
Apr 6
37
Apr 3
35
Apr 5
31
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 24 posts
Mark Sanguinetti 16 posts
LG 22 posts
pjroberge 47 posts
Popular Days
Apr 2 2004
37 posts
Apr 6 2004
37 posts
Apr 3 2004
35 posts
Apr 5 2004
31 posts
Shellon
unbeknownst to The Way International
=========================================
HUH?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
did they really spell "utilize" as "utelize"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Hey, look, my bold tags work too...
It's about the domain name, Pat. You're not The Way International. They are. Give them their domain name.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Hey Raf,
You check your face in the mirror lately? ... my bet is that it's blue.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Greek,
You are mistaken, but I truly appreciate your misplaced concern.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sadie
Raf, why should Pat give them a damn thing? TWI has taken enough from people using that almighty research and teaching ministry. F**k that bunch of plastic ****.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Raf, I don't think Greek2Me was trying to insult you. You've heard the expression, "You can argue/talk till you're blue in the face, and he/she won't listen"? That was how I took it, at least.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
sadie: Because two wrongs don't make a right? Regardless of what TWI did, Pat registered their name in bad faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Do any of you people, other than Pat, know anything about Trademark Law? No, I don't mean where you make up stuff as you go, but where you actually crack open a law book and study. I am just wondering because there sure seems to be a lot of amateur lawyers on this thread. And no, I am not going to discuss the merits of this case on this public forum.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Well, thanks for stopping by to b*tch at the rest of us, then.
-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
You're welcome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
MEOW
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Linda,
Good point. Greek, I apologize if I misunderstood you. In fact, I apologize. I'm sure I misunderstood you.
Sadie,
Pat doesn't have to do anything. He posted here because he wants opinions. I gave mine. Jesus taught that if someone sues you for your shoes, give him your coat, too (or something like that). I do think he was using hyperbole, which is exaggerating to a ridiculous degree to make a point. However, what IS the point? The point is not to get entangled in silly legal battles. Pat is NOT The Way International. They are. In my opinion, he should give them their name back and be done with this time-waster of a lawsuit. If he doesn't want my opinion, he shouldn't have started a thread on a public message board.
Mark,
Why the sudden need to have a law degree to have an opinion? My opinion of this is not based on trademark law, it's based on good old fashioned horse sense (as OM would say).
Pat is not the Way International. He owns "thewayinternational.com"
TWI IS The Way International. They do NOT own "thewayinternational.com"
Something's wrong with that picture.
They want the domain name. They should have it.
But as long as Pat sees that position as "bending over" or caving in to a bully, then he will never be rid of this unnecessary legal entanglement, which is diverting his time and attention from the REAL cult-fighting that supposedly got TWI angry with him in the first place.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Well, I wasn’t going to post to this thread again, but I changed my mind.
Mark, there are no amateur lawyers on this thread. Not one of us is practicing law or giving legal advice. Rather, we are discussing matters that Pat, not us, opened up for public discussion. One need not be a lawyer or a law student to have informed, reasoned opinions about those matters.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Rafael and Long Gone, your best advise has been to not discuss the specifics of this suit on an open forum. However, there are specific laws involved with Trademarks if you really care to look into them. Actually reading them gives one a better perspective than relying on common horse sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Mark!
You're misreading me. I did not say I'm relying on horse sense to draw legal conclusions. I don't know if Pat will win or lose in court. Leave that to the judges and lawyers.
What I said was that "my opinion of this" is based on horse sense. In other words, why is Pat wasting his time trying to hang onto this domain name?
If I were TWI, just to get his goat, I would register www.patroberge.com and use it to post information detrimental to his cult information distribution plans.
It's petty. Pat has real energy and resources that he wants to devote to the cause of exposing the truth of TWI. And how does he expend his energy and resources? With this? It's a WASTE.
Pat says TWI is picking on him for criticizing them. Well, I've been criticizing LCM, PFAL and Wierwille for years. Where's my lawsuit? Where's Paw's lawsuit? There's no lawsuit because what we do so clearly falls under free speech. Pat can continue to criticize TWI all he wants without fear of reprisal, once he drops this albatross of a domain name that actually HAS hindered him EXACTLY the way TWI wants it to, because it has diverted him from pursuing the reasonable goal of exposing that no-good outfit for the freedom-hating cult that it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
O.K. Rafael. I see your point now. Your point is that it is a waste of time for Pat to defend his rights to this domain name. I think whether or not this is a waste of time is up to Pat. I am not going to try to persuade him one way or the other on this. However, I will still support him if he decides to continue with this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Mark,
I agree with everything Rafael just wrote concerning Pat wasting his time and actually obstructing his purported purpose. In addition, I think that Pat is both morally and legally wrong in registering and holding the subject domain. I also think that some of his factual representations are wrong and that some of his interpretations of law and statements about legal process (particularly discovery) are bizarre. Now I don’t care one bit about what Pat thinks or does, and won’t say a word about it, if he keeps it to himself. If he posts about it here, I’ll comment as I see fit.
You asked, “Do any of you people, other than Pat, know anything about Trademark Law?” I’ll first point out that Pat doesn’t know as much about law as he represents. Then I’ll point out that several people have shown something that Pat apparently lacks, the ability to understand what they read. For examples, see Zixar and Raf’s posts near the bottom of page 8. There are plenty of others. Finally, I’ll state that relevant laws, rulings, court opinions, and facts are not particularly difficult to look up or comprehend. (At least they’re not difficult for me. According to your post at the bottom of page 7, you didn’t find TWI’s “THE WAY” trademark at uspto.gov. Maybe you missed the detailed instructions I posted on page 5 of this thread.)
BTW, Mark, your first post on this page seems a bit disingenuous, given what you said in that post at the bottom of page 7.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Is that what you mean by disingenuous, Long Gone? Give a guy an opportunity to weigh the merits and come to a conclusion as a conversation progresses. Seems to me he was in on the conversation with the rest of us and decided at some point that the amateur lawyering was a bad idea for everyone. Not disingenuous. Progressive.
:)-->
Mark, I didn't catch this line the first few times I read it:
You know, there's a built-in legal presumption in that statement: you presume that Pat has a right to the domain name. In THAT, you're being disingenuous. If you're not going to discuss the merits of the case, you should start by not presuming he is right, legally. Pat isn't defending his right to the domain name. He's defending his belief that he has a right to the domain name. That is, after all, the central question in the case, isn't it?
So let's the three of us agree on the one point we have in common: Pat, it's a bad idea to post your legal interpretations and justifications on a message board known to be monitored by the very lawyers who are suing you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Rafael, I am not going to discuss the legal merits of this suit on this message board. This is not because of a lack of knowledge of trademark law on my part. What I am stating however is that you admit to a lack of knowledge on trademark law, yet you insist on judging the legal merits of Pat's claim to the domain name which Pat owns and The Way Denomination does not. These two do not add up. They are at enmity. One thing we do agree on, however.
Agreed!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Long Gone, as I explained to Rafael, I will not discuss the legal merits of this trademark suit. Furthermore, I wish you would not pretend to know more than you actually do on this subject. Regarding looking up their "The Way" trademark. I am sure it is there because Pat says it is there and he has spent more time on The Way denomination's claim than I have. I am not about to go through the many similar trademarks to find this one at this time. I have a life and an already very active business schedule. However, I did find the trademark in question, "The Way International".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Greek2me
Raf,
No apology necessary. My remark was as Linda stated and sorry if I derailed a bit. Some of the things you've pointed out in here happen to be excellent advice, imo. Especially the Sermon on the Mount aspect of looking at this thing.
Unbelievably yet truly despicably, we have a christian orginization (at least professing to be, and yes, I am using the term very, very, loosely)) sueing a christian and going to a court of law made up possibly of "unbelievers". The organization has taught publicly against such actions (any sns teachings anyone?) in a supposed "rightly-dividing" of the Scriptures.
Once again, actions do speak louder than words.
What was it Jesus said? oh yeah, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments".
Now what's all this got to do with the legal aspect of this issue? Nothing. As a Christian, or a Christian organization, there really is no "legal" aspect, is there?
It's simply a matter of obedience.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
templelady
I decided to find out what has kept this disccussion going for 10 pages.
I am guessing that it is the following ad
http://www.excultworld.com/About_The_Way.htm
It all seems pretty straight forward to me
1. TWI didn't want it when it was avaiable
2. Pat took it since they didn't
3. THey want it now
4. It was up for sale (see above ad )and TWI didn't buy it
5. PAt is having way too much fun
-->
6. Everyone involved is going to spend way over $15,000 in actual lawyer, fees, expenses, time, briefs , motions etc etc etc.
So TWI if you want it (and I know you are out there
) post a bid on this thread.
Because the way I see it after all this discussion and carrying on any judge with half his salt is going to tell all parties to stop acting out and come to an agreement and quit wasting his and the courts time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.