sadly the news has overtaken this posting, the Albion OTO have disbanded
*under that name anyhow* and surrendered their web domain as a gift to the
cOTO (see a thread on www.lashtal.com entitled Albion OTO); this is largely,
I feel, because the judgment does lay them open to being in court at some
point in the future, and their membership numbers do not give them the
resources to mount any kind of expensive legal challenge without bankrupting
everyone concerned
dave e
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher I. Lehrich" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 8:39 PM
Subject: Re: [ACADEMIC-STUDY-MAGIC] OTO legal case/ Scientology & Copyright
>I just read the decision and the entire appeal, and I'd like to point
>something out in passing.
>
> Grant Potts wrote:
>> One interesting academic question *is* what the motivation in leadership
>> is here, but in order to get at that question, it is important to focus
>> on the facts that OTO is really claiming trademark on three things in
>> this case: the name, the initials, and the lamen--to insinuate from this
>> an idea that OTO is acting widely to silence critics is to enter into
>> tabloid analysis and move away from scholarly discourse. In order to
>> clearly examine and judge that question, we actually have to look at
>> those facts.
> Quite right. The appeal decision is fascinating reading, and very clear.
>
> The author of the decision, Anna Carboni, notes near the end of her
> discussion that it is important to distinguish between a legitimate trade
> mark and total control over everything resembling the Mark. The Caliphate
> OTO here gains the right, in essence, to use OTO as trademark on its
> publications, but it does not by that fact necessarily have the right to
> prevent any such usage by anyone else. Indeed, the discussion is explicit
> in saying that it is very possible that the Caliphate OTO might not have
> any such right, although she is properly cautious of prejudging the
> matter.
>
> Furthermore, the force of the overturn on appeal lies largely with the
> point that OTO _as a trade mark_ is used in selling particular goods and
> services. This does not mean, as she states repeatedly, that any other use
> of "OTO" is necessarily infringement. For example, an organization
> claiming to be the only legitimate expression of the true Ordo Templi
> Orientis would not by this token be infringing anything, because it is not
> using the Mark to sell goods and services. In short, this decision does
> not, as I understand it, entail that the Caliphate OTO has exclusive
> control of or right to anything other than the specific usage of this Mark
> for a particular type of sale.
>
> Ultimately, it looks to me as though the Caliphate OTO gains a certain
> amount of legal credibility with regard to its sales of books, but
> otherwise the decision grants them not a lot of power. The decision and
> the appeal decision both make very clear that they do not rule on the
> claims of legitimacy by Applicant or Opponent, after all. So it looks to
> me as though this isn't something one can really get very wound up about.
>
> Note, finally, that the decision appears to leave open the possibility
> that another group could register a different Mark, let's say "Albion
> OTO," and claim that because this Mark is distinctive from "OTO" it can be
> used properly to indicate a specific origin. In which case the whole thing
> is rather a tempest in a teacup.
>
> Chris Lehrich
>
> --
> Christopher I. Lehrich
> Assistant Professor of Religion
> Director of Graduate Studies, Division of Religious and Theological
> Studies
> Boston University
>
|