Re: Rathbun vs Scientology + Miscavige - February 4th, 2014 Hearing - Trademark Tek
<snip for brevity>
And CSI does not hold the trademarks. RTC does. So why would CSI or OSA be after them for trademark violations? This, per the purpose of RTC, IS WHAT RTC IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROTECTING.
My point is they are contradicting themselves. Once the Judge sees that it is RTC's job to protect trademarks, things are going to again make no sense. CSI is saying they did it to protect trademarks, but that is not their job.
That's what everyone thought, BeaKiddo, until attorneys for RTC/DM attached a single-page document to a filing they submitted to the Court very early on. (I think Tony Ortega/
The Undeground Bunker reported the story on September 1, 2013.)
(
EDIT: It was also attached as an exhibit with CSI Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss in December 2013. See link below.)
The document is purported to be an amendment to an agreement between CSI and RTC, with RTC giving trademark/copyright enforcement authority to CSI.
IIRC, the amendment is dated June 1, 2009.
If the amendment document
is true/authentic, it basically means that prior to June 1, 2009
CSI and RTC possessed shared the legal authority to protect/maintain/enforce trademark/copyright rights; after that date,
only CSI possessed legal authority.
The amendment document's date is, erm,
suspicious, because that date would very easily enable RTC to point an accusatory finger at CSI as the entity that 'called ALL the shots' for Operation Harass Monique Rathbun....which allegedly began
after June 1, 2009.
Also suspicious...the amendment doesn't say, for example, that CSI must seek approval from RTC before it does anything in connection with trademark/copyright enforcement authority. Nor does is say that when one takes action (CSI) it must notify the other (RTC).
For an organization that is obsessed with org boards, chain-of-command, & pecking order, such an omission is highly unusual, yes?
What's oddest, to me at least, is that no matter who's in charge of trademark/copyright rights management - RTC or CSI or both - the result is clear: epic, consistent failure.
Why?
Because I can read online about Xenu and OTVIII and L's and all manner of other 'super sekrit' stuff due entirely to the abject failure of Co$/scientology mgmt to conduct any measure of trademark rights enforcement. They can slap an 'all rights reserved' blurb on whatever they like, but it's meaningless since they haven't lifted a finger in the last 5-8 years to protect those very same rights.
Co$/scientology mgmt, for all practical purposes, appears to be deeply involved in the camera placement business. Trademark Tek, not so much.
JB
2nd EDIT: An earlier post on another thread puts this issue in context with dox/links here:
http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthre...athbun-Hearing&p=894459&viewfull=1#post894459
EDIT: Thanks to Cakemaker, who found/posted the link to the amendment referenced above. Link here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/177348757/Monique-Rathbun-v-Scientology-CSI-s-Anti-SLAPP-Motion-part-1