What's new

First Independent Church of Scientology

Dulloldfart

Squirrel Extraordinaire
Even without the anticipated resistance from the BIG CofS, there are huge problems in trying to implement such a set-up. They relate to "how on-source" this new organization is going to be. Do they follow "Hubbard's" tech and policy exactly, ignoring for the moment that it's impossible to discover the actual source of most of the stuff with Hubbard's name on it? If the answer is yes, then what happens with (useful) stuff developed after whatever cut-off date is chosen, say 1982? And what about the green-on-white stuff? Should it all be followed exactly, or does some get left out?

Once it's decided (by whom?) to leave bits out, that allows the questions of (1) What gets left out?, and (2) Who decides this?

It's possible to have a small Scn-ish group of one or a few people, with one guy in charge who makes the rules, and he decides what goes in his little group (even if it has a grandiose name like "Advanced Org of the North-East") and what doesn't. It works well enough, in that any arguments about "out-tech" or "off-policy" can all be resolved by the my-way-or-the-highway principle. But as soon as you up the size of this group to encompass more than one chief who feels he has the power of choice in such things, you run into problems IF there's an umbrella organization seeking to put in uniformity. The cult did it just fine (sort of!) pre-Internet by using unlimited force to stomp out dissent/individualism, but look at the mess that all turned into.

Anyway, we'll see.

Paul
 

DagwoodGum

Squirreling Dervish
Even without the anticipated resistance from the BIG CofS, there are huge problems in trying to implement such a set-up. They relate to "how on-source" this new organization is going to be. Do they follow "Hubbard's" tech and policy exactly, ignoring for the moment that it's impossible to discover the actual source of most of the stuff with Hubbard's name on it? If the answer is yes, then what happens with (useful) stuff developed after whatever cut-off date is chosen, say 1982? And what about the green-on-white stuff? Should it all be followed exactly, or does some get left out?

Once it's decided (by whom?) to leave bits out, that allows the questions of (1) What gets left out?, and (2) Who decides this?

It's possible to have a small Scn-ish group of one or a few people, with one guy in charge who makes the rules, and he decides what goes in his little group (even if it has a grandiose name like "Advanced Org of the North-East") and what doesn't. It works well enough, in that any arguments about "out-tech" or "off-policy" can all be resolved by the my-way-or-the-highway principle. But as soon as you up the size of this group to encompass more than one chief who feels he has the power of choice in such things, you run into problems IF there's an umbrella organization seeking to put in uniformity. The cult did it just fine (sort of!) pre-Internet by using unlimited force to stomp out dissent/individualism, but look at the mess that all turned into.

Anyway, we'll see.

Paul

If it's not being fought tooth & nail I'd expect that one day we'll learn that it's no more than another Scilon sponsored front like the Teaparty is to the Republican party.
In this way they might seek to distance themselves from their past and start over as a new "church" w/o the bad karma carryover they are experiencing currently.
 

Terril park

Sponsor
Hilarious. If the FICS implements Hubbard's Ethics 'tech' it cannot help but BE control mechanism. After all scio 'Ethics' is all about controlling the persons behavior and thought and keeping him/her in lock-step with Hubbards insane path to 'total freedom'.

Further, independent scientologists are all about taking the 'arbitraries' out of the current scio doctrine that Miscavaige put in because that is what is causing scio to fail and making people flee the cult. But scio is worthless to begin with...it has not and cannot deliver the promised gains and abilities of 'clear' and OT.

It's like saying that putting a square steering wheel on a car with square tires is the reason the the car won't move. It couldn't move in the first place.

Our beloved British Leyland pioneered the square steering wheel
and possibly letting the public be its div 5.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/cars/cla...ow-the-worst-car-of-all-time-came-to-be-made/


The gains and abilities of clear and OT may be debated. The gains
alleged of OT and cleared theta clear have not been widely seen, except sporadically and usually unrepeatably. That gains and abilities have occurred I've witnessed and experienced.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
First Independent Church of Scientology Establishing A Technical Standards Committee

First Independent Church of Scientology Is Establishing A Technical Standards Committee.

Religious Liberty League: Having the Correct Technology

http://religiouslibertyleague.org/having-the-correct-technology/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Getting the Technology In

A prominent Class VIII auditor once told us that he/she would rejoin the Sea Org if given the opportunity to put the tech in. We found that admirable, but not entirely unexpected. After all, in the Class VIII course, LRH gave students the task of ensuring the technology remains standard.

We hope that person and many other Class VIIIs will step up and help get the tech in FICS, which is tantamount to getting the tech in the church, because one day, perhaps a distant day, those few souls left within the ever-crumbling church will want the correct technology.

And FICS will give it to them – in furtherance of Keeping Scientology Working Steps six through ten: (6) Seeing that the technology is correctly applied; (7) Hammering out of existence incorrect technology; (8) Knocking out incorrect applications; (9) Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology; and (10) Closing the door on incorrect application.

Technical Standards Committee

The plan to have the correct technology begins with the establishment of a Technical Standards Committee comprised of Class VIII auditors who have proven results applying the technology. This process has begun, and several qualified people have already volunteered.

Lana Mitchell has generously donated her time and skills to help establish this project.
Anyone desiring to contribute may contact her through [email protected]. Please let us know if you are qualified and willing to join the committee, or can recommend someone who is.

The committee, among other things, will nominate to the FICS board of directors a candidate(s) to hold the position of Senior Case Supervisor. Please provide input, including your choice for the best qualified candidates. All information received will be forwarded to the Technical Standards Committee.

The ultimate product FICS is looking for is the correct technology: a classification and gradation chart that can be placed in every mission, church, or advanced organization; course packs and checksheets that FICS can package and make available to all its licensees.

Once the correct technology has been settled on we will isolate and deal with the trademark and copyright issues presented and then formulate a more precise legal strategy.

How You Can Help


We touched on some ways you can assist this effort, above. There are other ways, some that we might not even envision. So please weigh in.

Do you support this approach? If not, why not? If so, why?

We know that a number of people in the field have created their own charts, course packs and checksheets, and therefore, that a lot of ground work has already been done by competent tech terminals. We request your assistance and support and ask you to provide copies of your work product to the Technical Standards Committee for its review.

If you have something to say regarding the makeup of the Technical Standards Committee or who should or should not be the Senior Case Supervisor, now is the best time to say it.

As we mentioned in a previous article, FICS is your church. It will succeed to the degree that able people step up and contribute to it.

We all bear some responsibility for losing the correct technology. This is our chance to remedy the situation. Please lend a hand.
____________________
END NOTE:
[1] HCO PL 7 February 1965, KSW Series 1, Keeping Scientology Working.


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 
Last edited:

tetloj

Silver Meritorious Patron
Re: First Independent Church of Scientology Establishing A Technical Standards Commit

First Independent Church of Scientology Is Establishing A Technical Standards Committee.



Lana Mitchell has generously donated her time and skills to help establish this project.
Anyone desiring to contribute may contact her through [email protected]. Please let us know if you are qualified and willing to join the committee, or can recommend someone who is.

Only keeping peripheral vision on indy scientology....is this a convergence of Milestone 2 and Merrill Vanner's lot or is Lana switching horses? (Or is that very much the question?)
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: First Independent Church of Scientology Establishing A Technical Standards Commit

Only keeping peripheral vision on indy scientology....is this a convergence of Milestone 2 and Merrill Vanner's lot or is Lana switching horses? (Or is that very much the question?)
I don't think Lana is switching horses. She is still running Milestone Two.

I know I posted above a favorable MS2 announcement of the FICS. I also see a number of MS2 commentators now also commenting on the RRL (Religious Liberty League) articles on the FICS. People at MS2 are supportive of FICS, but there has been no official merger, and I don't see anyone abandoning ship at MS2.
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Re: First Independent Church of Scientology Establishing A Technical Standards Commit

First Independent Church of Scientology Is Establishing A Technical Standards Committee.

Religious Liberty League: Having the Correct Technology

http://religiouslibertyleague.org/having-the-correct-technology/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Getting the Technology In

A prominent Class VIII auditor once told us that he/she would rejoin the Sea Org if given the opportunity to put the tech in. We found that admirable, but not entirely unexpected. After all, in the Class VIII course, LRH gave students the task of ensuring the technology remains standard.

We hope that person and many other Class VIIIs will step up and help get the tech in FICS, which is tantamount to getting the tech in the church, because one day, perhaps a distant day, those few souls left within the ever-crumbling church will want the correct technology.

And FICS will give it to them – in furtherance of Keeping Scientology Working Steps six through ten: (6) Seeing that the technology is correctly applied; (7) Hammering out of existence incorrect technology; (8) Knocking out incorrect applications; (9) Closing the door on any possibility of incorrect technology; and (10) Closing the door on incorrect application.

Technical Standards Committee

The plan to have the correct technology begins with the establishment of a Technical Standards Committee comprised of Class VIII auditors who have proven results applying the technology. This process has begun, and several qualified people have already volunteered.

Lana Mitchell has generously donated her time and skills to help establish this project.
Anyone desiring to contribute may contact her through [email protected]. Please let us know if you are qualified and willing to join the committee, or can recommend someone who is.

The committee, among other things, will nominate to the FICS board of directors a candidate(s) to hold the position of Senior Case Supervisor. Please provide input, including your choice for the best qualified candidates. All information received will be forwarded to the Technical Standards Committee.

The ultimate product FICS is looking for is the correct technology: a classification and gradation chart that can be placed in every mission, church, or advanced organization; course packs and checksheets that FICS can package and make available to all its licensees.

Once the correct technology has been settled on we will isolate and deal with the trademark and copyright issues presented and then formulate a more precise legal strategy.

How You Can Help


We touched on some ways you can assist this effort, above. There are other ways, some that we might not even envision. So please weigh in.

Do you support this approach? If not, why not? If so, why?

We know that a number of people in the field have created their own charts, course packs and checksheets, and therefore, that a lot of ground work has already been done by competent tech terminals. We request your assistance and support and ask you to provide copies of your work product to the Technical Standards Committee for its review.

If you have something to say regarding the makeup of the Technical Standards Committee or who should or should not be the Senior Case Supervisor, now is the best time to say it.

As we mentioned in a previous article, FICS is your church. It will succeed to the degree that able people step up and contribute to it.

We all bear some responsibility for losing the correct technology. This is our chance to remedy the situation. Please lend a hand.
____________________
END NOTE:
[1] HCO PL 7 February 1965, KSW Series 1, Keeping Scientology Working.


* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
Milestone Two has expressed support for the above effort.

Tech Standards

https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/tech-standards/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Posted by Lana M.

February 24, 2016

By Milestone Two Admin

(Excerpt from recent posting at Religious Liberty League)

The administrative – as opposed to the legal – establishment of the First Independent Church of Scientology (FICS) is underway.

Naturally, that involves having the correct technology.

“The only thing you can be upbraided for by students or pcs is ‘no results.’ Trouble spots occur only where there are ‘no results.’ Attacks from governments or monopolies occur only where there are ‘no results’ or ‘bad results.’

“Therefore the road before Scientology is clear and its ultimate success is assured if the technology is applied.”[1]

The first step in applying the correct technology is: Having the Correct Technology.

See the rest of this good article here. Highly recommended reading.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 

Dave B.

Maximus Ultimus Mostimus
Still delusional.

Still waiting for the Freezone acknowledgement that other INDIVIDUALS contributed mightily to the $cientology technology. And that therefore, as written by LRH, KSW is FALSE, as Hubbard was NOT the sole source of said tech.

Address that.

Or maybe in kult speech: Confront that. The reality. Touch the wall. Many others contributed MAJOR and IMPORTANT portions or your tech.


When will one of these off-shoots address that ACTUALITY and at least come up to the level of the general public and publicly available information? Until then the Midget has very little to worry about.





* I apologize for all the CAPS but I'm addressing $cientologists, lol.
 

programmer_guy

True Ex-Scientologist
So, this is the Protestant Reformation of Scientology! Interesting. :coolwink:

Seems to me like they just want to "turn the clock back" to the 1970s.
Puleease, give me a break!
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
It's the First Independent Church of Scientology to the rescue!

It's the First Independent Church of Scientology to the rescue!

Tony Ortega: The shocking space opera secret that is guiding Scientology litigation

http://tonyortega.org/2016/02/26/th...ecret-that-is-guiding-scientology-litigation/

Please go to Tony's blog for the entire story.

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Rebels43b-e1456437599321.jpg



* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Free Zone Convention invites speaker from First Independent Church of Scientology

Free Zone Convention invites speaker from First Independent Church of Scientology.

http://religiouslibertyleague.org/new-legal-entity-first-independent-church-of-scientology/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Rey R. Robles February 23, 2016 at 6:28 pm Reply

We need & want some one to speak on this, at the Free Zone Convention this year in June.

This year we will have people from all over the USA & Europe & even the old USSR. We are going live on the WEB once again, there are over 2000 people that view us every year. We have been doing FZ Conventions for over 15 years. This is great news for every one. There are Class 6, 8th & 12 that show up to speak. Call me ASAP.

Best Rey R. Robles

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 
The Trademark (technically, Service Mark) application of the First Independent Church of Scientology has been assigned to a Trademark Examiner in the US Patent and Trademark Office.

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86817837&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

attachment.php
Any idea what that letter of protest is? Can you get a copy of it? It would be a good thing to write a counter letter to it - since it's likely from the CofS.

Much like the MLS that they are - they want an exclusive right to the name, however - it is becoming household word, much like Kleenex and many others, and taking the exclusiveness away from them would be a good thing.

So if you can find out where we can send letters of support, it would be a good thing to post it here.

Mimsey
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Any idea what that letter of protest is? Can you get a copy of it? It would be a good thing to write a counter letter to it - since it's likely from the CofS.

Much like the MLS that they are - they want an exclusive right to the name, however - it is becoming household word, much like Kleenex and many others, and taking the exclusiveness away from them would be a good thing.

So if you can find out where we can send letters of support, it would be a good thing to post it here.

Mimsey
To date, the actual letter of protest has not been disclosed. However, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office memorandum regarding the letter is posted above and is also set forth below.

attachment.php
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
First Independent Church of Scientology is now an official California corporation

First Independent Church of Scientology is now an official California corporation.

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • FICS-OfficialCaliforniaCorporation.PNG
    FICS-OfficialCaliforniaCorporation.PNG
    7.1 KB · Views: 246

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
Milestone Two assisting First Independent Church of Scientology Standard Tech Comm.

Milestone Two assisting First Independent Church of Scientology Standard Tech Committee.

Milestone Two: From the horse’s mouth

https://milestonetwo.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/from-the-horses-mouth/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

By Lana M

[SNIP].

I am also assisting Merrell Vannier to form up a standard tech committee consisting of Class VIIIs, Class IXs and Class XIIs for the First Independent Church of Scientology. And no, I won’t be on such a committee, as I am not a Class VIII (yet).

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
WoW!

It's funny we have now 2 churches of Scientology! :happydance:

A relief..we will be saved
ON THIS PLANET
:happydance:

Who is the general inspector RTC ?????


I squirrel the tech
I squirrel the tech
I squirrel the tech

:sing::sing::sing:
:giggle:
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
US Patent and Trademark Office sent Non-final Office Action to FICS

US Patent and Trademark Office sent Non-final Office Action to First Independent Church of Scientology.

US Patent and Trademark Office: http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86817837&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Generated on: This page was generated by TSDR on 2016-04-14 21:19:07 EDT

Mark: FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

US Serial Number: 86817837 Application Filing Date: Nov. 12, 2015

Filed as TEAS RF: Yes Currently TEAS RF: Yes

Register: Principal

Mark Type: Service Mark

Status: A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. To view all documents in this file, click on the Trademark Document Retrieval link at the top of this page
.
Status Date: Mar. 18, 2016

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86817837&docId=OOA20160318154750#docIndex=0&page=1


* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86817837

MARK: FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF
*86817837*
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
RAYMOND R. TABANDEH
CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP
P.O. BOX 29001
GLENDALE, CA 91209-9001
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp

VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
APPLICANT: JAMES R. FONDA
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:
79176/F558
CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[email protected]


OFFICE ACTION

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTERTO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 3/18/2016

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

The Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Examination Policy accepted a Letter of Protest received in connection with this application. The evidence presented in the letter was forwarded to the trademark examining attorney for consideration. See TMEP §1715.

Based upon this evidence, the trademark examining attorney is taking further action, as specified below. See TMEP §1715.02(b).

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION(S)

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 86336991, 86336984, 86339615, 86336978, 86335732, 86336981, 86336980, 86336979, 86335735, 86338294, 86339617 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION

Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4674470, 4533003, 2717563, 2678135, 1342353, 1329474, 1318717, 1306997, 1540928, and 0898018. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

Comparison of the Marks

The applicant’s mark is FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY.

The registrant’s marks include the typed drawing, SCIENTOLOGY, and an entire family of marks prominently including the wording, SCIENTOLOGY -- all owned by the same entity.

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751. In this case the wording, “SCIENTOLOGY,” is the distinctive and dominant wording in creating a commercial impression.

Adding a term to a registered mark, for instance, merely descriptive terminology, “first independent church,” generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

The overall commercial impression of the marks is the same.

Comparison of the Services

The applicant’s services are “spiritual ministry services.”

The registrant’s goods and services include religious and ministerial services, education and information in the field of religion and philosophy, and books, films, videos, booklets, pamphlets, etc., in the field of the registrant’s services.

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and/or services of the respective parties that is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).

In this case, the goods and services are related religious and ministry goods and services. The marks create the impression that the goods and services emanate from a common source. Consumers are likely to be confused into thinking that the applicant’s and registrant’s services emanate from the same source.

Registration is therefore denied.

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

REFUSAL – FALSE ASSOCIATION

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the religion or Church of Scientology. Although religion or Church of Scientology is not connected with the services provided by applicant under the applied-for mark, Scientology is so famous that consumers would presume a connection. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); see TMEP §1203.03, (c). See generally Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202 (TTAB 1985); Buffett v. Chi-Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428 (TTAB 1985).

Under Trademark Act Section 2(a), the registration of a mark that “consists of or comprises matter that may falsely suggest a connection with persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols” is prohibited. In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d 1185, 1188 (TTAB 2013). To establish that an applied-for mark falsely suggests a connection with a person or an institution, the following is required:

(1) The mark sought to be registered is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity previously used by another person or institution.

(2) The mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution.

(3) The person or institution identified in the mark is not connected with the goods sold or services performed by applicant under the mark.

(4) The fame or reputation of the named person or institution is of such a nature that a connection with such person or institution would be presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods and/or services.

In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d at 1188-89; In re Jackson Int’l Trading Co., 103 USPQ2d 1417, 1419 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1203.03(c)(i); see also Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1375-77, 217 USPQ 505, 508-10 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (providing foundational principles for the current four-part test used to determine the existence of a false connection).




If applicant’s goods and/or services are of a type that the named person or institution sells or uses, and the named party is sufficiently famous, then it may be inferred that purchasers of the goods and/or services would be misled into making a false connection of sponsorship, approval, support or the like with the named party. See, e.g., In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639, 1647-48 (TTAB 2015) (holding ROYAL KATE used with applicant’s consumer products, including fashion products, suggested a connection with Kate Middleton would be inferred because evidence showed that Kate Middleton, by virtue of being the wife of Prince William of the British Royal family, has become a celebrity and fashion trend-setter the media reports on, including the clothes she wears, what she does, and what she buys); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202, 204-05 (TTAB 1985) (holding WESTPOINT used with applicant’s firearms suggested sponsorship, approval, support or the like from West Point because evidence showed that West Point is a well-known U.S. Military Academy).

The fact that purchasers would realize, at some point after purchase, that no connection exists between the listed goods and/or services and the person or institution falsely connected, is not relevant. The focus is on “the initial reaction or impact of the mark when viewed in conjunction with the applicable goods or services.” In re U.S. Bicentennial Soc’y, 197 USPQ 905, 906 (TTAB 1978) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting In re Nat’l Intelligence Acad., 190 USPQ 570, 572 (TTAB 1976)).

In this case, the dominant portion of the applicant’s mark is “Scientology,” the same as the renowned Church of Scientology. The mark would be immediately associated with Scientology such that it would point uniquely and unmistakably to the institution of Scientology. The Church of Scientology is not connected with the applicant. See attached blog article downloaded from the Religious Liberty League’s website, http://religiouslibertyleague.org/new-legal-entity-first-independent-church-of-scientology/.

Scientology is of such a nature that a connection with such person or institution would be presumed when applicant's mark is used on its goods and/or services. Scientology was coined and was established as a religion by founder L. Ron Hubbard over fifty years ago. The famous author of the New York Times best seller, Dianetics, "found himself studying the human spirit to answer the question of who or what was operating the mind. With this basic and elementary discovery of the human spirit, a new subject was founded: Scientology." See the attached information fromwww.scientology.org. According to the Scientology website, it has grown to over 11,000 churches, missions and affiliated groups across the United States and 167 countries. See attached information from the registrant’s website. See also, attached BusinessInsider article documenting the celebrities who are members of the institution who also help to make it a famous institution. Finally, see attached articles downloaded from various new outlets discussing Scientology. A connection with the Church of Scientology would be presumed because the applicant’s ministry is in the field of Scientology.

In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that (a) the Church of Scientology is a well-known and recognized particular institution, (b) that the use of the “Scientology” wording in the applicant’s mark unmistakably points to that institution, (c) that the institution identified in the mark is not connected with the services performed by applicant under the mark, and (d) that the Church of Scientology is so famous that a connection with such institution would be presumed when applicant's mark is used on its services.

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the religion or Church of Scientology

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

Applicant must disclaim the wording, “First Independent Church,” because it is laudatory and merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services, and thus is an unregistrable component of the mark. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).

The wording, “first,” in the mark is akin to “original.” “Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product [or service] are . . . regarded as being descriptive” because “elf-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); TMEP §1209.03(k).

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that the word “original” used alone or paired with descriptive wording is merely laudatory and descriptive of goods or services being the first of their kind. See In re Ervin, 1 USPQ2d 1665, 1666 (TTAB 1986) (holding THE “ORIGINAL” merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s scorer for playing euchre as the first of its kind); Gen. Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990, 994 (TTAB 1984) (holding ORIGINAL BLEND merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s cat food comprising a first-of-its-kind combination of ingredients). The word, “first,” is merely laudatory and descriptive of being the earliest, or best, of its kind. See attached dictionary definition.

The wording, “independent church,” merely describes a self-governing religious institution. See attached dictionary definitions. The combination of terms, “first independent church” is laudatory and merely descriptive of an original self-governing religious institution.

An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace. See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983). A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213. See attached examples of other uses of “first independent” in connection with churches.

If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark. See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).

Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH” apart from the mark as shown.

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go tohttp://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02. Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. There is a $100 fee for such petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).


TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring this additional fee.

/rscb/
Robin S. Chosid-Brown
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 102
571-272-9252
[email protected]




TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail [email protected]. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.

WHO MUST SIGN THE RESPONSE: It must be personally signed by an individual applicant or someone with legal authority to bind an applicant (i.e., a corporate officer, a general partner, all joint applicants). If an applicant is represented by an attorney, the attorney must sign the response.

PERIODICALLY CHECK THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION: To ensure that applicant does not miss crucial deadlines or official notices, check the status of the application every three to four months using the Trademark Status and Document Retrieval (TSDR) system at http://tsdr.uspto.gov/. Please keep a copy of the TSDR status screen. If the status shows no change for more than six months, contact the Trademark Assistance Center by e-mail at [email protected] or call 1-800-786-9199. For more information on checking status, seehttp://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/process/status/.

TO UPDATE CORRESPONDENCE/E-MAIL ADDRESS: Use the TEAS form at http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/correspondence.jsp.



* * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *
 
Last edited:

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
First Independent Church of Scientology has filed a new trademark application.

First Independent Church of Scientology has filed a new trademark application.

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4805:4inrk7.2.2

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

attachment.php


Word Mark FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Goods and Services IC 045. US 100 101. G & S: SPIRITUAL MINISTRY SERVICES

Mark Drawing Code (3) DESIGN PLUS WORDS, LETTERS, AND/OR NUMBERS

Design Search Code 01.01.02 - Star - a single star with four points

24.13.25 - Cross, ankh; Cross, Maltese; Other crosses, including ankh, Maltese

26.01.21 - Circles that are totally or partially shaded.

Serial Number 86905517

Filing Date February 11, 2016

Current Basis 1B

Original Filing Basis 1B

Owner (APPLICANT) FONDA, James R. INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES 655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor Glendale CALIFORNIA 91203

Attorney of Record Raymond R. Tabandeh

Description of Mark The color(s) light blue and dark blue is/are claimed as a feature of the mark. The mark consists of A larger circular shape with darker blue circumference, a smaller circular shape with lighter blue circumference located inside the larger circular shape, a cross shape inside of the smaller circular shape with white outer perimeter and darker blue inner perimeter, the cross shape having a star shape of the same colors at its crossing. The words FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY in dark blue being located to the right of the circular design.

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

* * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *

A non-final office action has also been issued with regard to this application:

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=86905517&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

US Serial Number: 86905517 Application Filing Date: Feb. 11, 2016

Filed as TEAS RF: Yes Currently TEAS RF: Yes

Register: Principal

Mark Type: Service Mark

Status: A non-final Office action has been sent (issued) to the applicant. This is a letter from the examining attorney requiring additional information and/or making an initial refusal. The applicant must respond to this Office action. To view all documents in this file, click on the Trademark Document Retrieval link at the top of this page.

Status Date: Mar. 18, 2016

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

http://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn86905517&docId=OOA20160318160137#docIndex=1&page=1

* * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION

U.S. APPLICATION SERIAL NO. 86905517

MARK: FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF
*86905517*
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
RAYMOND R. TABANDEH
LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER CHRISTIE LLP
P.O. BOX 29001
GLENDALE, CA 91209-9001
CLICK HERE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER:
http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp

VIEW YOUR APPLICATION FILE
APPLICANT: FONDA, James R.
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:
79664/F558
CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
[email protected]


OFFICE ACTION

STRICT DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER TO AVOID ABANDONMENT OF APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION, THE USPTO MUST RECEIVE APPLICANT’S COMPLETE RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUE/MAILING DATE BELOW.

ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 3/18/2016

The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62, 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.

PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION(S)

The filing dates of pending U.S. Application Serial Nos. 86336991, 86336984, 86339615, 86336978, 86335732, 86336981, 86336980, 86336979, 86335735, 86338294, 86339617 precede applicant’s filing date. See attached referenced applications. If one or more of the marks in the referenced applications register, applicant’s mark may be refused registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d) because of a likelihood of confusion with the registered mark(s). See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); 37 C.F.R. §2.83; TMEP §§1208 et seq. Therefore, upon receipt of applicant’s response to this Office action, action on this application may be suspended pending final disposition of the earlier-filed referenced applications.

In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the marks in the referenced applications. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.

SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
Registration of the applied-for mark is refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the marks in U.S. Registration Nos. 4674470, 4533003, 2717563, 2678135, 1342353, 1329474, 1318717, 1306997, 1540928, and 0898018. Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the enclosed registrations.

Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.

In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods and/or services, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods and/or services. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.

Comparison of the Marks

The applicant’s mark is FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY.

The registrant’s marks include the typed drawing, SCIENTOLOGY, and an entire family of marks prominently including the wording, SCIENTOLOGY -- owned by the same entity.

Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F. 3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).

Although marks are compared in their entireties, one feature of a mark may be more significant or dominant in creating a commercial impression. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d 1056, 1058, 224 USPQ 749, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1985); TMEP §1207.01(b)(viii), (c)(ii). Greater weight is often given to this dominant feature when determining whether marks are confusingly similar. See In re Nat’l Data Corp., 753 F.2d at 1058, 224 USPQ at 751. In this case the wording, “SCIENTOLOGY,” is the distinctive and dominant wording in creating a commercial impression.

Adding a term to a registered mark, for instance, merely descriptive terminology, “first independent church,” generally does not obviate the similarity between the compared marks, as in the present case, nor does it overcome a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d). See Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Jos. E. Seagram & Sons, Inc., 526 F.2d 556, 557, 188 USPQ 105, 106 (C.C.P.A. 1975) (finding BENGAL and BENGAL LANCER and design confusingly similar); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1269 (TTAB 2009) (finding TITAN and VANTAGE TITAN confusingly similar); In re El Torito Rests., Inc., 9 USPQ2d 2002, 2004 (TTAB 1988) (finding MACHO and MACHO COMBOS confusingly similar); TMEP §1207.01(b)(iii). In the present case, the marks are identical in part.

The overall commercial impression of the marks is the same.

Comparison of the Services

The applicant’s services are “spiritual ministry services.”

The registrant’s goods and services include religious and ministerial services, education and information in the field of religion and philosophy, and books, films, videos, booklets, pamphlets, etc., in the field of the registrant’s services.

The goods and/or services of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

The respective goods and/or services need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).

Generally, the greater degree of similarity between the applied-for mark and the registered mark, the lesser the degree of similarity between the goods and/or services of the respective parties that is required to support a finding of likelihood of confusion. In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202 (TTAB 2009); In re Thor Tech, Inc., 90 USPQ2d 1634, 1636 (TTAB 2009).

In this case, the goods and services are related religious and ministry goods and services. The marks create the impression that the goods and services emanate from a common source. Consumers are likely to be confused into thinking that the applicant’s and registrant’s services emanate from the same source.

Registration is therefore denied.

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

Applicant should note the following additional ground for refusal.

REFUSAL – FALSE ASSOCIATION

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the religion or Church of Scientology. Although religion or Church of Scientology is not connected with the services provided by applicant under the applied-for mark, Scientology is so famous that consumers would presume a connection. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); see TMEP §1203.03, (c). See generally Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 217 USPQ 505 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202 (TTAB 1985); Buffett v. Chi-Chi’s, Inc., 226 USPQ 428 (TTAB 1985).


Under Trademark Act Section 2(a), the registration of a mark that “consists of or comprises matter that may falsely suggest a connection with persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols” is prohibited. In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d 1185, 1188 (TTAB 2013). To establish that an applied-for mark falsely suggests a connection with a person or an institution, the following is required:

(1) The mark sought to be registered is the same as, or a close approximation of, the name or identity previously used by another person or institution.

(2) The mark would be recognized as such, in that it points uniquely and unmistakably to that person or institution.

(3) The person or institution identified in the mark is not connected with the goods sold or services performed by applicant under the mark.

(4) The fame or reputation of the named person or institution is of such a nature that a connection with such person or institution would be presumed when applicant’s mark is used on its goods and/or services.

In re Pedersen, 109 USPQ2d at 1188-89; In re Jackson Int’l Trading Co., 103 USPQ2d 1417, 1419 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1203.03(c)(i); see also Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imps. Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1375-77, 217 USPQ 505, 508-10 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (providing foundational principles for the current four-part test used to determine the existence of a false connection).

If applicant’s goods and/or services are of a type that the named person or institution sells or uses, and the named party is sufficiently famous, then it may be inferred that purchasers of the goods and/or services would be misled into making a false connection of sponsorship, approval, support or the like with the named party. See, e.g., In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 USPQ2d 1639, 1647-48 (TTAB 2015) (holding ROYAL KATE used with applicant’s consumer products, including fashion products, suggested a connection with Kate Middleton would be inferred because evidence showed that Kate Middleton, by virtue of being the wife of Prince William of the British Royal family, has become a celebrity and fashion trend-setter the media reports on, including the clothes she wears, what she does, and what she buys); In re Cotter & Co., 228 USPQ 202, 204-05 (TTAB 1985) (holding WESTPOINT used with applicant’s firearms suggested sponsorship, approval, support or the like from West Point because evidence showed that West Point is a well-known U.S. Military Academy).

The fact that purchasers would realize, at some point after purchase, that no connection exists between the listed goods and/or services and the person or institution falsely connected, is not relevant. The focus is on “the initial reaction or impact of the mark when viewed in conjunction with the applicable goods or services.” In re U.S. Bicentennial Soc’y, 197 USPQ 905, 906 (TTAB 1978) (internal punctuation omitted) (quoting In re Nat’l Intelligence Acad., 190 USPQ 570, 572 (TTAB 1976)).

In this case, the dominant portion of the applicant’s mark is “Scientology,” the same as the renowned Church of Scientology. The mark would be immediately associated with Scientology such that it would point uniquely and unmistakably to the institution of Scientology. The Church of Scientology is not connected with the applicant. See attached blog article downloaded from the Religious Liberty League’s website, http://religiouslibertyleague.org/new-legal-entity-first-independent-church-of-scientology/.

Scientology is of such a nature that a connection with such person or institution would be presumed when applicant's mark is used on its goods and/or services. Scientology was coined and was established as a religion by founder L. Ron Hubbard over fifty years ago. The famous author of the New York Times best seller, Dianetics, "found himself studying the human spirit to answer the question of who or what was operating the mind. With this basic and elementary discovery of the human spirit, a new subject was founded: Scientology." See the attached information fromwww.scientology.org. According to the Scientology website, it has grown to over 11,000 churches, missions and affiliated groups across the United States and 167 countries. See attached information from the registrant’s website. See also, attached BusinessInsider article documenting the celebrities who are members of the institution who also help to make it a famous institution. Finally, see attached articles downloaded from various new outlets discussing Scientology. A connection with the Church of Scientology would be presumed because the applicant’s ministry is in the field of Scientology.

In conclusion, the evidence demonstrates that (a) the Church of Scientology is a well-known and recognized particular institution, (b) that the use of the “Scientology” wording in the applicant’s mark unmistakably points to that institution, (c) that the institution identified in the mark is not connected with the services performed by applicant under the mark, and (d) that the Church of Scientology is so famous that a connection with such institution would be presumed when applicant's mark is used on its services.

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark consists of or includes matter which may falsely suggest a connection with the religion or Church of Scientology

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

If applicant responds to the refusal(s), applicant must also respond to the requirement set forth below.

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

Applicant must disclaim the wording, “First Independent Church,” because it is laudatory and merely describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services, and thus is an unregistrable component of the mark. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(e)(1), 1056(a); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).

The wording, “first,” in the mark is akin to “original.” “Marks that are merely laudatory and descriptive of the alleged merit of a product [or service] are . . . regarded as being descriptive” because “elf-laudatory or puffing marks are regarded as a condensed form of describing the character or quality of the goods [or services].” DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1256, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting In re The Boston Beer Co., 198 F.3d 1370, 1373, 53 USPQ2d 1056, 1058 (Fed. Cir. 1999)); TMEP §1209.03(k).

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has held that the word “original” used alone or paired with descriptive wording is merely laudatory and descriptive of goods or services being the first of their kind. See In re Ervin, 1 USPQ2d 1665, 1666 (TTAB 1986) (holding THE “ORIGINAL” merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s scorer for playing euchre as the first of its kind); Gen. Foods Corp. v. Ralston Purina Co., 220 USPQ 990, 994 (TTAB 1984) (holding ORIGINAL BLEND merely laudatory and descriptive of applicant’s cat food comprising a first-of-its-kind combination of ingredients). The word, “first,” is merely laudatory and descriptive of being the earliest, or best, of its kind. See attached dictionary definition.

The wording, “independent church,” merely describes a self-governing religious institution. See attached dictionary definitions. The combination of terms, “first independent church” is laudatory and merely descriptive of an original self-governing religious institution.

An applicant may not claim exclusive rights to terms that others may need to use to describe their goods and/or services in the marketplace. See Dena Corp. v. Belvedere Int’l, Inc., 950 F.2d 1555, 1560, 21 USPQ2d 1047, 1051 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Aug. Storck KG, 218 USPQ 823, 825 (TTAB 1983). A disclaimer of unregistrable matter does not affect the appearance of the mark; that is, a disclaimer does not physically remove the disclaimed matter from the mark. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 978, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965); TMEP §1213. See attached examples of other uses of “first independent” in connection with churches.

If applicant does not provide the required disclaimer, the USPTO may refuse to register the entire mark. See In re Stereotaxis Inc., 429 F.3d 1039, 1040-41, 77 USPQ2d 1087, 1088-89 (Fed. Cir. 2005); TMEP §1213.01(b).

Applicant should submit a disclaimer in the following standardized format:

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH” apart from the mark as shown.

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this disclaimer requirement online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go tohttp://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/law/disclaimer.jsp.

DESCRIPTION OF THE COLORS IN THE MARK/COLOR CLAIM

Applicant must amend the color claim and mark description to identify all the colors in the mark drawing. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §807.07(a)-(a)(ii). The following colors have been omitted from the color claim: white. In addition, the following colors have been omitted from the mark description: white.

A complete color claim must reference all the colors appearing in the drawing of the mark. See 37 C.F.R. §2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. Similarly, a complete mark description for a mark depicted in color must identify all the literal and design elements in the mark and specify where the colors appear in those elements. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. However, if black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the mark description a statement that the colors black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark. See TMEP §807.07(d).

The following color claim and mark description are suggested, if accurate:

Color claim: “The colors light blue, dark blue, and white are claimed as a feature of the mark.

Mark description: “The mark consists of the following: A larger dark blue circle, a thin white circle, a smaller lighter blue circle shape located inside the larger circular shape, a cross shape inside of the smaller circular shape with white outer perimeter and darker blue inner perimeter, the cross shape having a star shape of the same colors at its crossing. The words FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY in dark blue being located to the right of the circular design.


RESPONSE GUIDELINES

For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.

If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02. Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. There is a $100 fee for such petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).


TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820. TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $50 per international class of goods and/or services. 37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04. However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone without incurring this additional fee.


/rscb/
Robin S. Chosid-Brown
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 102
571-272-9252
[email protected]




TO RESPOND TO THIS LETTER: Go to http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/teas/response_forms.jsp. Please wait 48-72 hours from the issue/mailing date before using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), to allow for necessary system updates of the application. For technical assistance with online forms, e-mail [email protected]. For questions about the Office action itself, please contact the assigned trademark examining attorney. E-mail communications will not be accepted as responses to Office actions; therefore, do not respond to this Office action by e-mail.

All informal e-mail communications relevant to this application will be placed in the official application record.


* * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *
 

Attachments

  • FICSLogoTrademarkRequested.jpe
    FICSLogoTrademarkRequested.jpe
    13.2 KB · Views: 791
Last edited:

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
First Independent Church of Scientology Update on Trademark Application, etc.

First Independent Church of Scientology Update on Technical Standards Committee, Trademark Application and Copyrights.

Religious Liberty League: Sundry Updates

http://religiouslibertyleague.org/sundry-updates/

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Sundry Updates

Been awhile since our last post, readers remind us.

We would like to post more often, but most of our news on the legal front is highly technical in addition to being strategic and therefore not suitable for broad public issue. We will throw out some tidbits now and try to do better in the future.

Technical Standards Committee

The Technical Standards Committee is formed and functioning. We are not releasing names at this point. They are all Class VIII auditors, with many hours in the chair. Importantly, they have each demonstrated character and integrity in the face of altered tech inside the church and refused to go along.

The committee is in the process of putting together a Classification & Gradation Chart based on the 1978 and 1980 versions, the last ones of which LRH sanctioned. It will contain the original OT levels with audited and solo New Era Dianetics for OTs (NOTs) inserted into their rightful place after OT III and before OT IV.

The Church of Scientoloy does not deliver this LRH bridge. First Independent Church of Scientology (FICS) will.

The committee will then start at the bottom of the chart and work upwards, going through various versions of course check sheets, course packs and auditing actions in order to select and recommend standard materials for use by FICS.

At some point prior to action by the FICS board of directors, we will publish their findings and solicit feedback that can be further considered by the committee.

Trademark Application

As many readers may recall an application for trademark of the name First Independent Church of Scientology was filed. At that time it was decided to hold back on applying for a separate trademark for the FICS logo, that is, the same name plus the image we used in the post entitled, “New Legal Entity: First Independent Church of Scientology.”

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused to grant the trademark in a notice dated March 18, 2016, citing the church’s trademark and a likelihood of confusion in the general public between the two marks. The notice can be viewed here.

The law and procedure regarding trademarks is complex, so it is difficult to explain why this action by the USPTO is not entirely unexpected or very significant. It is noted, for example, that the ruling is not a final determination; we have six months to respond. We can still file an action to cancel the church’s trademark for having become generic and we can file a separate application for a trademark of the logo, i.e., name (First Independent Church of Scientology) plus image – the current application was for name only, to name two of many other options.

Most notably, FICS does not need a trademark to a name that uses the word Scientology in order to use the name. FICS can always open its doors and force the church to file a trademark infringement legal action, the defense of which has its own advantages, and thus, this option is still under consideration. The filing of the request for a trademark in the name (only, no image) was a strategic decision.

We have another five months to decide how to proceed, and time is on our side.

Copyrights

More important is the ability to use original LRH materials. As discussed above, we are in the process of identifying those materials.

Meanwhile we have legal experts in the various areas of law of intellectual property (i.e., trademarks and copyrights), First Amendment, religious organizations, and commercial litigation coordinating, planning and developing various legal strategies for a unified approach to the many legal challenges we face, not just with trademarks.

This is going well. All involved are confident of achieving our objectives.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

Refusal of First Independent Church of Scientology Trademark

http://www.religiouslibertyleague.org/TM%20App_FICS_Denial.pdf

************************************************************************

One additional observation. I don't understand Merrell's comment that, "we can file a separate application for a trademark of the logo, i.e., name (First Independent Church of Scientology) plus image." As noted above, the FICS already filed such an application which was denied for the same reason. I have no idea what Merrell is talking about.
 
Last edited:
Top