Petition: Un-trademark Scientology

[CommunicatorIC]

From Geir Isene.

Petition: Un-trademark Scientology

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/scientologyuntm

Opened on November 28, 2013

To: United States Patent and Trademark Office
Petition to cancel the trademark SCIENTOLOGY

Words designating a science such as biology, gerontology etc. should not be trademarked for obvious reasons. Such is the case with Scientology if one considers the following:

1)scientology is a word designating a science, as evidenced by the publication of Scientology, science of the constitution and usefulness of knowledge, ISBN 3-9804724-0-8 by Dr. A Nordenholz (1934) . Later it was defined as a science--the study of the human spirit in its relationship to the physical universe and its living forms--by L.Ron Hubbard in Ability Magazine 146 and in numerous other publications.

2)scientology in the 21st Century has become a generic term describing the philosophy, science and theories used by many people considering themselves scientologists (incl. independents).

3)the trademark holders have abused the rights in an attempt to deny other scientologists, not affiliated with the trademark holder from using the term describing the science.

 

[degraded being]

.
.
Untaxexempt them.

 

[Type4_PTS]

I'm not sure if I like the idea of un-trademarking Scientology.

Scientology was never about Science, and characterizing it as such is deceptive imo.

It has lots of evil stuff built into it by design which becomes clear when reading Jefferson Hawkins brilliant analysis of the Ethics system.

I don't take issue with those who wish to utilize any parts of Scientology they find useful as long as they don't continue the Scientological tradition of fraudulent marketing. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and there are some raisins in the piles of excrement that Hubbard stole from others which may have some benefit for some individuals.

But to have dozens of different individuals and groups all practicing different things and all calling it 'Scientology' would just confuse the issue.

Besides, why would someone wish to use that brand name anyways? :confused2:

It's been associated with countless human rights violations, fraud, criminality, corruption, deception, betrayal, exploitation, etc.

If I open up a center as a private practitioner and call it "Larry's Scientology Center" how is that a wise marketing decision?

Scientology as designed by Hubbard is a crazy and dangerous criminal cult which is destructive to it's own members and society in general. And THATS what the world needs to come to understand. By calling other practices 'scientology' will just confuse the general public.

Yes, David Miscavige is a sociopath, but the CoS is the way it is not because of him but because of the Founder. You know, the guy who created Fair Game, Disconnection, KSW (which turns members into fanatics), Scientology "Ethics", which allows for the destruction of other human beings who are critical of Scientology and justifies the murder of those who threaten the expansion of the CoS.

Geir (or anyone reading this), how does un-trademarking 'Scientology' benefit us?

 

[Udarnik]

I'm not sure if I like the idea of un-trademarking Scientology.

Scientology was never about Science, and characterizing it as such is deceptive imo.

It has lots of evil stuff built into it by design which becomes clear when reading Jefferson Hawkins brilliant analysis of the Ethics system.

I don't take issue with those who wish to utilize any parts of Scientology they find useful as long as they don't continue the Scientological tradition of fraudulent marketing. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and there are some raisins in the piles of excrement that Hubbard stole from others which may have some benefit for some individuals.

But to have dozens of different individuals and groups all practicing different things and all calling it 'Scientology' would just confuse the issue.

Besides, why would someone wish to use that brand name anyways? :confused2:

It's been associated with countless human rights violations, fraud, criminality, corruption, deception, betrayal, exploitation, etc.

If I open up a center as a private practitioner and call it "Larry's Scientology Center" how is that a wise marketing decision?

Scientology as designed by Hubbard is a crazy and dangerous criminal cult which is destructive to it's own members and society in general. And THATS what the world needs to come to understand. By calling other practices 'scientology' will just confuse the general public.

Yes, David Miscavige is a sociopath, but the CoS is the way it is not because of him but because of the Founder. You know, the guy who created Fair Game, Disconnection, KSW (which turns members into fanatics), Scientology "Ethics", which allows for the destruction of other human beings who are critical of Scientology and justifies the murder of those who threaten the expansion of the CoS.

Geir (or anyone reading this), how does un-trademarking 'Scientology' benefit us?

So now the whole thing can be freely disseminated and spin off lots of little cults?

No.

Kill it.

Kill it with an axe, and drive a wooden stake through every piece.

 

[Idle Morgue]

I'm not sure if I like the idea of un-trademarking Scientology.

Scientology was never about Science, and characterizing it as such is deceptive imo.

It has lots of evil stuff built into it by design which becomes clear when reading Jefferson Hawkins brilliant analysis of the Ethics system.

I don't take issue with those who wish to utilize any parts of Scientology they find useful as long as they don't continue the Scientological tradition of fraudulent marketing. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and there are some raisins in the piles of excrement that Hubbard stole from others which may have some benefit for some individuals.

But to have dozens of different individuals and groups all practicing different things and all calling it 'Scientology' would just confuse the issue.

Besides, why would someone wish to use that brand name anyways? :confused2:

It's been associated with countless human rights violations, fraud, criminality, corruption, deception, betrayal, exploitation, etc.

If I open up a center as a private practitioner and call it "Larry's Scientology Center" how is that a wise marketing decision?

Scientology as designed by Hubbard is a crazy and dangerous criminal cult which is destructive to it's own members and society in general. And THATS what the world needs to come to understand. By calling other practices 'scientology' will just confuse the general public.

Yes, David Miscavige is a sociopath, but the CoS is the way it is not because of him but because of the Founder. You know, the guy who created Fair Game, Disconnection, KSW (which turns members into fanatics), Scientology "Ethics", which allows for the destruction of other human beings who are critical of Scientology and justifies the murder of those who threaten the expansion of the CoS.

Geir (or anyone reading this), how does un-trademarking 'Scientology' benefit us?

Let the Indie's call it Scientology - the reputation of this cult is so bad - they won't last!! I know a field staff auditor that fleeced $100K out of a guy and then he died. What a WIN? What a fraudulent scam! If the Indie's want to continue calling it Scientology - they are only hurting themselves and it pisses Miscavige off to no end...so let them call it Scientology. It will die a lot faster.

I am surprized no one has challenged this cult in the courts for all the copying the ole Turd did...Scientology = SCAM! It is coming ... one day very soon someone is going to sue the shit out of this crazy cult and they will win and bankrupt Scientology and put them out of business once and for all!!

 

[aegerprimo]

I'm not sure if I like the idea of un-trademarking Scientology.

Scientology was never about Science, and characterizing it as such is deceptive imo.

It has lots of evil stuff built into it by design which becomes clear when reading Jefferson Hawkins brilliant analysis of the Ethics system.

I don't take issue with those who wish to utilize any parts of Scientology they find useful as long as they don't continue the Scientological tradition of fraudulent marketing. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and there are some raisins in the piles of excrement that Hubbard stole from others which may have some benefit for some individuals.

But to have dozens of different individuals and groups all practicing different things and all calling it 'Scientology' would just confuse the issue.

Besides, why would someone wish to use that brand name anyways? :confused2:

It's been associated with countless human rights violations, fraud, criminality, corruption, deception, betrayal, exploitation, etc.

If I open up a center as a private practitioner and call it "Larry's Scientology Center" how is that a wise marketing decision?

Scientology as designed by Hubbard is a crazy and dangerous criminal cult which is destructive to it's own members and society in general. And THATS what the world needs to come to understand. By calling other practices 'scientology' will just confuse the general public.

Yes, David Miscavige is a sociopath, but the CoS is the way it is not because of him but because of the Founder. You know, the guy who created Fair Game, Disconnection, KSW (which turns members into fanatics), Scientology "Ethics", which allows for the destruction of other human beings who are critical of Scientology and justifies the murder of those who threaten the expansion of the CoS.

Geir (or anyone reading this), how does un-trademarking 'Scientology' benefit us?

So now the whole thing can be freely disseminated and spin off lots of little cults?

No.

Kill it.

Kill it with an axe, and drive a wooden stake through every piece.

I agree Type 4 & Udarnik! And yes... Geir, how does un-trademarking Scientology benefit us or anybody?

 

[Mimsey Borogrove]

Whether it has any impact on the practice or not, un-patenting it is a good idea since it is part of the death by a thousand flee bites and it creates dev-t within the cult to defend against it.

Even if it somehow works and the trademarks and patents are invalidated, do you think that will cause them to cease being vindictive assholes and stop fair game?

Mimsey

 

[ILove2Lurk]

. . .

I heard some rumblings that the family and heirs of the estate of Sir Isaac Newton, the English physicist who is arguably the most influential scientist of all time and a main contributor to the scientific revolution, want to copyright and trademark his works and discoveries, which include:

• Laws of motion and gravity
• Foundations for most of classical mechanics
• Contributions in optics
• Reflecting telescopes
• Theory of colour
• Empirical laws of cooling
• Speed of sound

So you'll have to pay them or tithe them when you use gravity, electricity, laws of motion, etc. Most everything you do in life.

Good job if you can get it.

Joking aside, and that was a silly gag, the one thing I see that Hubbard actually tried to do is to trademark and commercialize (put on a paying basis) most aspects or fields of the humanities, including: philosophy, religion, laws of the universe, study methodology, talk therapy, human potential improvement techniques, on and on.

But mental image pictures and the mind exist independent of any copyright law or trademark and consequently can be, and will be, independently discovered by many other investigators in the future . . . . if they do exist in fact as described by Hubbard. [Not wanting to provoke another debate about that here.]

Just like the laws of physics would have been discovered independently of Issac Newton had he not done his work when he did.

The mind and MIPs are things that simply "are." Just like things in physical sciences simply "are." They are things that will be discovered and observed and confirmed by many researchers over time. Again, if actual as described.

That said, realistically you cannot copyright laws of nature . . . or things that exist in nature.

YMMV.

Hope I expressed myself clearly. Groggy after days of overeating and celebrating.

 

[lotus]

Is there a petition to let it fall under forgotten ''unworkable mind control intelligence system''

worked out in the cold war era for government intelligence, then formatted into a Pnzi scheme religious cult - but did not work for either one or other purpose.

 

[RogerB]

Well, I'm for anything that weakens the cult and strips it of any basis and power to attack those it does not like.

The point of law that would be argued here is not on the basis of the content of the subject nor on the basis of what the subject is, but on the basis that the word Scientology is an invented word . . . . and like any invented new word, it can be copyrighted (as can any new design or visual presentation of a common word).

Of course, we know Nordenholz created the word and concept it represents with a slightly different spelling (in the German style) some decades before Hubbard . . . so there could be grounds for killing the Cof$ copyright in German speaking areas . . . but in the US, it is likely to be a tough call.

Rog

 

[Infinite]

. . . Of course, we know Nordenholz created the word and concept it represents with a slightly different spelling (in the German style) some decades before Hubbard . . . so there could be grounds for killing the Cof$ copyright in German speaking areas . . . but in the US, it is likely to be a tough call.

Rog

Huh? I think you'll find the word "scientology" first appeared in the 1910 publication of The New Word, by Allen Upward.

Upward created the word for use in the perjorative sense to describe the mindset of those whose adherence to science is akin to a religious faith.

 

[oneonewasaracecar]

^^^

Interestingly if you view the book on google books here, it lists an LRH book next to it.

It is also available on archive.org

 

[Panda Termint]

"In 1908, Upward self-published a book (originally written in 1901) which he apparently thought would be Nobel Prize material: The New Word. This book is today known as the first citation of the word "Scientology", although it is used in the book in a disparaging way to describe "science elevated to unquestioning doctrine". It is unknown whether L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology-organization, knew of this book."

 

[Type4_PTS]

"In 1908, Upward self-published a book (originally written in 1901) which he apparently thought would be Nobel Prize material: The New Word. This book is today known as the first citation of the word "Scientology", although it is used in the book in a disparaging way to describe "science elevated to unquestioning doctrine". It is unknown whether L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of the Scientology-organization, knew of this book."

If LRH were here on ESMB I'm sure he'd LOL and tell us a story of how he came up with the word trillions of years ago.

 

[Veda]

I'm not sure if I like the idea of un-trademarking Scientology.

Scientology was never about Science, and characterizing it as such is deceptive imo.

It has lots of evil stuff built into it by design which becomes clear when reading Jefferson Hawkins brilliant analysis of the Ethics system.

I don't take issue with those who wish to utilize any parts of Scientology they find useful as long as they don't continue the Scientological tradition of fraudulent marketing. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, and there are some raisins in the piles of excrement that Hubbard stole from others which may have some benefit for some individuals.

But to have dozens of different individuals and groups all practicing different things and all calling it 'Scientology' would just confuse the issue.

Besides, why would someone wish to use that brand name anyways? :confused2:

It's been associated with countless human rights violations, fraud, criminality, corruption, deception, betrayal, exploitation, etc.

If I open up a center as a private practitioner and call it "Larry's Scientology Center" how is that a wise marketing decision?

Scientology as designed by Hubbard is a crazy and dangerous criminal cult which is destructive to it's own members and society in general. And THATS what the world needs to come to understand. By calling other practices 'scientology' will just confuse the general public.

Yes, David Miscavige is a sociopath, but the CoS is the way it is not because of him but because of the Founder. You know, the guy who created Fair Game, Disconnection, KSW (which turns members into fanatics), Scientology "Ethics", which allows for the destruction of other human beings who are critical of Scientology and justifies the murder of those who threaten the expansion of the CoS.

Geir (or anyone reading this), how does un-trademarking 'Scientology' benefit us?

This is one of those things that seemed like a good idea thirty years ago and, probably, still seems like a good idea to outside the CofS Scientologists.

I thought that Geir was no longer a Scientologist. Is he having a flashback?

"Words designating a science" ???

I have both the German original and the English translation of 'Scientologie'. The translation, which I believe is the only English translation, or the only available English translation, was compiled by a Scientologist or former Scientologist (Woodward R. McPheeters) in 1968, so it's slightly "Scientology flavored."

It's a wild stretch to say that Hubbard's Scientology somehow derives from Nordenholz.

Nonetheless, the idea is used periodically, by outside the CofS Scientologists, in an attempt to legitimize - and make acceptable - "Scientology," by tracing its origins back to an obscure German philosopher, who happened to use the term "Scientologie."

 

[Type4_PTS]

This is one of those things that seemed like a good idea thirty years ago and, probably, still seems like a good idea to outside the CofS Scientologists.

<snip>

I can appreciate that non-CoS Scientologists would think it a good idea.

Personally, I think this idea (below) is better.

 

[Freeminds]

Copyright exists until 75 years after the death of the creator of the piece of work, maximum.

Since that useless fat turd, L Ron Hubbard finally died (raving, and shot full of Vistaril) in 1986, Scientology will remain under copyright until early 2061 - at which point, all of Blubbard's works will be free to share, publish, change, and do whatever you like with them. Somebody may even be able to get the 'Tech' working at last, if they change it enough...

(Too bad nobody will remember Scientology by 2061. It's virtually in the rubbish bin of history, even now.)

If you wanted to remove the copyright on the word Scientology without pretending that it's a science, you could do so if the author of that 1908 book was dead by 1938... 75 years before now, in other words. And the clock is still ticking, of course. 75 years, and you can do what you like with it.

Note that this would not affect the rights on the text of Blubbard's own demented writing; just the name of the pseudoscience itself, "Scientology". Also, it would not affect "Dianetics" - although tubby had lost the rights to that name by 1951, so whatever.

It's probably fair to say that the Scientology Cult is entirely aware of the 1908 book, and will not attempt to sue anybody who uses the name of their cult. They would maybe try to scare you off, but if you stuck to your guns, they'd have to either silence you with creepy cult stalking tactics, or fold. They wouldn't pursue the copyright of "Scientology" in a court, because they would lose. Miscavige is probably punching somebody for this, but his pustulates don't change simple fact: poor old L Ron Hubbard didn't some up with an original name for his science fiction role-playing game.

 

[TG1]

Geir's off the wall. Even if it were possible to de-mark Scientology (which it's not), what good would that do?

By the way, it's not scienceology, scienceathon, scienceability or sciencesensation.

It's "Scientology." It's trademarked because it's trademarked -- just that simple -- and because its trademark protections are continuously updated. Likewise, its logos are mark-protected.

http://www.uspto.gov/faq/t120052.jsp

Also, the earlier "Scientology" term crafted in the early 1900s surely hasn't had its trademark maintained. So that protection for that term is dead.

Also, the trademark, e.g., "Acme," can be used for different types of products, services, concerns, organizations, etc. You could have an Acme Moving and an Acme Toothpaste and an Acme Church.

 

[degraded being]

Geir's off the wall. Even if it were possible to de-mark Scientology (which it's not), what good would that do?

By the way, it's not scienceology, scienceathon, scienceability or sciencesensation.

It's "Scientology." It's trademarked because it's trademarked -- just that simple -- and because its trademark protections are continuously updated. Likewise, its logos are mark-protected.

http://www.uspto.gov/faq/t120052.jsp

Also, the earlier "Scientology" term crafted in the early 1900s surely hasn't had its trademark maintained. So that protection for that term is dead.

Also, the trademark, e.g., "Acme," can be used for different types of products, services, concerns, organizations, etc. You could have an Acme Moving and an Acme Toothpaste and an Acme Church.

Right. So what we need to do is think up a word for threads that are already derailments as they are created. How about "opderail threads".

The thread is a derailment of the topic "Untaxempt the COS". Could someone go to Geir's blog and tell him that I've been thinking about this methodically and that I invite comments. Thank you.