Help: laws on refering to TM on generic websites?
scie...@ipotesi.net
is it legal to display information about Transcendental
Meditation on a website? What kind of information
can be displayed? The reason of this question is the
following.
We just received a letter from the attorneys of the
"Transcendental Meditation" Organization in Iowa.
They ask us to remove any reference, in our website,
to Transcendental Meditation, because this is registered
as a trademark in the USA (Reg. No. 1,082,923),
as well as TM (Reg. 1,015,556).
So I wonder why how many websites (including contra-TM
sites like minet.org, trancenet.org and so on) can keep
info on TM on their website!
Probably they know laws better than me. So, please help
me to understand more what I am allowed to do and what
I may not do, so that I can answer these attorneys.
Of course, tricks to keep our website just as it is,
are welcome! (Or minor changes).
If necessary, I can be more specific: they say that
we can't make reference to TM and we can't do comparison
with our own stress relief technique.
I can't believe that we are not allowed to write
anything like that!
Thanks for your help.
Thanks!
Fabrizio Coppola
John Manning
What are you writing about TM on your website?
>
> Thanks!
>
> Fabrizio Coppola
scie...@ipotesi.net
The TM attorneys say that, if we refer to TM on our website and make
comparisons with our stress relief technique, these actions constitute
violations of the US Lanham Act (that I don't know what is), Section
1114 and 1125, as well as the statute and common laws of several
states.
Please help us to understand what we can do and if they are just trying
to scare us with no real legal basis.
Thanks,
Fabrizio Coppola
Istituto Scientia
scie...@ipotesi.net
technique achieves the same psycho-phsyological effects of TM.
You may disagree with this statement, but I can't see how it can be
illegal, just because we compare our technique with TM or even because
we wrote the words TM and Transcendental Meditation!
I wonder why websites minet.org , trancenet.org and suggestibility.org
are still there, even though they name, quote and despise TM.
Thanks for explaining me what we allowed to do, according to law.
Are they trying to scare us? And nothing else?
Thanks again
Fabrizio Coppola
John Manning
What is the working URL for your website?
John Manning
Please provide the working URL for your website.
Steve Ralph
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote in message
news:1125683784.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
out for yourself.
Look at some ads for washing powder.
sr
scie...@ipotesi.net
I imagine they don't like this specific web page:
http://www.natural-stress-relief.com/stress/cbmeditation.htm
I imagine that if you read this web page, you will disagree on its
content. However, this is not a problem for us, if you or whoever
disagree on the content. The possibile problem is that this webpage
violates US laws. Actually, I can't see why! So, please be impartial
about this... Thanks.
Fabrizio Coppola
preman...@yahoo.co.uk
I question the accuracy of your quoted statement:-
'the original TM taught by Maharishi in 1958, with a single basic
syllable or "mantra" suitable for anybody (around 1970 Maharishi
started to prescribe different "mantras"'
Perhaps you received this information from the School of Meditation or
the Study Society?
Feel free to contact me off-line at premanandpaulATyahooDOTcoDOTuk
John Manning
Well done, Steve. This page pretty much sums
it up:
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1125.html
scie...@ipotesi.net
publishers
http://www.techlawjournal.com/statutes/15usc1114.asp
§1125. False designations of origin and false descriptions forbidden :
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sec_15_00001125----000-.html
I don't think we are included in 1125.
Maybe we may be included in 1114 (innocent infringment), but I have to
read more.
Bhairitu
opinions from other attorneys. The TMO has some deep pockets if they
are wrong. :)
scie...@ipotesi.net
There is no
"False designations of origin and false descriptions"
and believes it is a "misleading description of fact".
For example, it is not misleading at all that TM is
very expensive ($2500), while other similar techniques,
that achieve similar results, are less expensive (see
Chopra's primorial sound, $300 or so).
Is it false or misleading that Chopra's or Harrison's techniques
are similar to TM?!
If you want to comment on this case, please do this
objectively. I understand that you disagree on the content
of the website, but this does not make it illegal !
I can imagine that 1114 (innocent infringement) may be
concerned, but I am not sure. In the case, we will make
minor changes.
However, what about websites such as minet.org and
trancenet.org? They would be much worse, I guess!
Fabrizio Coppola
scie...@ipotesi.net
(but I think you are not right)...
I don't think this statement is illegal !
P.S.
By the way, all this is another consequence
of the *absurd* fee for TM ($2500.00!)
If the fee was "regular" (say $300 or $500)
this would not happen.
However, as long as it is legal, we will
make it happen...
Fabrizio Coppola
John Manning
> This page seems unrelated to our case .
> There is no
> "False designations of origin and false descriptions"
> on our website (unless the reader is not intelligent
> and believes it is a "misleading description of fact".
> For example, it is not misleading at all that TM is
> very expensive ($2500), while other similar techniques,
> that achieve similar results, are less expensive (see
> Chopra's primorial sound, $300 or so).
> Is it false or misleading that Chopra's or Harrison's techniques
> are similar to TM?!
>
> If you want to comment on this case, please do this
> objectively. I understand that you disagree on the content
> of the website,
Actually, I was unable to bring up either
page you posted. That may just be because of
my location or ISP. I don't know.
> but this does not make it illegal !
>
> I can imagine that 1114 (innocent infringement) may be
> concerned, but I am not sure. In the case, we will make
> minor changes.
I'm personally totally for free speech about
just about anything, but - even apart from
the legal implications - I find it a bit
unethical and even demeaning for someone
selling something to resort to hanging on
the coattails of others to make their
position. I would think that if your methods
are so successful as you apparently think
they are, your program could *stand on its own*.
Chopra has done this successfully. He
*doesn't* promote his methods in terms of
TM. I know nothing of 'Harrison'.
> However, what about websites such as minet.org and
> trancenet.org? They would be much worse, I guess!
Those websites are not selling a product as
you guys are. That's a big difference.
>
> Fabrizio Coppola
>
scie...@ipotesi.net
>you guys are. That's a big difference.
So, you say that *insulting* is more legal than what we do?
It's not an ironic question, it's a real question, this would not
be the case under Italian law!
Herbert Benson wrote, in his bestseller "The Relaxation Response"
(5000 copies!), that TM effects are the same that are achieved
by other techniques such as autogenic training and his own
relaxation techniques. And I can't remember that Benson was sued.
By the way, may I show to others the letter we received from the
attorneys? Or are there legal or privacy limitations?
Anyway...
Since it's obvious that the TM Organization is dying (just because
chose to suicide), I think that the future of TM will be in these
"surrogate" techniques (like Chopra's technique also).
Regards,
Fabrizio Coppola
John Manning
>>Those websites are not selling a product as
>>you guys are. That's a big difference.
>
>
> So, you say that *insulting* is more legal than what we do?
I don't write the laws.
> It's not an ironic question, it's a real question, this would not
> be the case under Italian law!
Maybe Italian law doesn't apply in this case.
> Herbert Benson wrote, in his bestseller "The Relaxation Response"
> (5000 copies!), that TM effects are the same that are achieved
> by other techniques such as autogenic training and his own
> relaxation techniques. And I can't remember that Benson was sued.
That wasn't my call.
> By the way, may I show to others the letter we received from the
> attorneys? Or are there legal or privacy limitations?
Ask an attorney who knows about this stuff.
I'm not an attorney.
> Anyway...
> Since it's obvious that the TM Organization is dying (just because
> chose to suicide), I think that the future of TM will be in these
> "surrogate" techniques (like Chopra's technique also).
Of course, you are free to think whatever
you wish. And *I* think that you guys are
trying to fly on Maharishi's coattails to
promote your operation because you can't
*stand on your own*.
> Regards,
> Fabrizio Coppola
preman...@yahoo.co.uk
Newsgroups: alt.meditation.transcendental
From: premanandp...@yahoo.co.uk - Find messages by this author
Date: 2 Sep 2005 13:01:26 -0700
Local: Fri, Sep 2 2005 9:01 pm
Subject: Re: Help: laws on refering to TM on generic websites?
I wasn't talking about any legal or pricing problem, but about the
statement relating to mantra. Your statement does not match the results
of my research, some of which is contained in my published biography of
the Maharishi. Details at http://www.paulmason.info/ &
http://www.maharishibiography.com/
scie...@ipotesi.net
>you wish.
Of course.
>And *I* think that you guys are
>trying to fly on Maharishi's coattails to
>promote your operation because you can't
>*stand on your own*.
Well, I think something different:
we are helping people to solve their
problems and to be happy, even if
TM teaching is dead.
A lot of people would like to learn TM
(as millions were allowed to, in the
1970s and '80s, at a reasonable price).
They can't afford to spend $2500.00
for something that is *likely* to work,
but they can't be sure it will.
Our compassionate goal is to help
these people to learn a technique that
is *not* TM (so, no infringement...) but
gets similar effects (physiologically
demonstrated), for a reasonable price.
If our website talks about TM as a similar
(but expensive) technique, this is obvious
and legal, I guess.
Further on: the creator
of this new technique happens to be
a former TM teacher, and we are allowed
to say this. He is no more a certified teacher
but this is due to the absurd policies of the
TMO, that does not recognize as qualified those
MT teachers that did not attend a recent
expensive course (absurd decision!!!!!!!).
So, 85+% of Italian TM teachers are no more
qualified at this time (by the way, "our" TM
teacher, creator of our stress relief technique,
is American, even though most of us are
from Italy).
The TM organization should check its self-
descructive actions rather than the supposed
attacks from outside (like ours), that are the
only hope for something like TM to survive
(BTW, as you can see, I have started to change
my words, just to fit the laws: that's why I
wrote "something like TM" instead of TM :-))
In spite of our different opinions, I want to thank
everybody for helping me to understand something
more about our situation.
Regards,
Fabrizio Coppola
http://www.natural-stress-relief.com
John Manning
First, I have had nothing to do with
Maharishi or his organization for about 25
years.
But, second...
Without the TM Guru Dev Puja and its
critical subtle implications, you have
nothing more than a dime-a-dozen 'relaxation
technique' like Herbert Benson in his lab or
P.T. Barnum Schlock with his latest scam.
You likely don't have any idea what that
*really* means. As a TM teacher, trained by
Maharishi, that has personally directly
taught maybe a thousand or so - I do know
that difference. And as a person who has
studied all of this kind of stuff for at
least 40 years, I can tell you that
*NOTHING* tops TM - or even *approaches* its
efficacy - when properly taught and practiced.
And you're *still* flying on Maharishi's
coattails to sell your 'product'.
scie...@ipotesi.net
If you want to believe that the Puja causes
the effectiveness of the technique, you are
free to believe this.
My point is different.
I would like to know why we are supposed
to violate law by talking about TM.
About H.Benson:
in his bestseller "The Relaxation Response"
(5 million copies!) he wrote that TM results
could be achieved by his relaxation technique
and by autogenic training or whatever.
I don't care if this is true of false (and I believe,
as you do, that it's false).
I wonder why he was not sued for writing about
TM (trademark) for advertising his own activity
as a medical doctor in the relaxation field!
Wouldn't be this case the same as ours?
A final strange question.
The first time I came to the USA, in 1985, I
saw a commercial spot on the TV, with
Lionel Ritchie (the singer) drinking a Pepsi Cola.
Then he said: "Horrible! Disgusting!
Let me drink a Coke!"
or something like that, while throwing away
the Pepsi can.
I could not believe this!
In Italy, this would be an insult, hence a violation of law.
Now I understand that American law does not care
much about insults...
However, how do you explain that he talked about a trademark
(Pepsi Cola) just to advertise a competitor product (Coca Cola)
and make money?!
The parallel with us obvious: TM and Natural Stress Relief.
What is wrong in this deduction of mine?
Thanks for helping me to understand these *legal* issues
Fabrizio
John Manning
Get a lawyer. There are dozens of people and
groups like you who try to make money off
Maharishi's coattails by comparing what
*they* offer. They are all failures in terms
of the continued efficacy of practice in
those who 'sign up' and buy their
advertisements. Finding God [ParamAtma],
coming to self-realization, and recognizing
the Absolute Self - just doesn't happen for
them. Getting 'relaxed' can happen with
drugs, hypnosis or taking a warm bath -
doesn't remotely compare.
Like I said, you don't have any idea.
>
> Fabrizio
>
Steve Ralph
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote in message
news:1125693563.7...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >Of course, you are free to think whatever
>>you wish.
>
> Of course.
>
>>And *I* think that you guys are
>>trying to fly on Maharishi's coattails to
>>promote your operation because you can't
>>*stand on your own*.
>
> Well, I think something different:
> we are helping people to solve their
> problems and to be happy, even if
> TM teaching is dead.
Wow, you are just full of it. This is just self-justification
and whining.
The fact is you are minor pygmies who have to stand on
the shoulders of giants.
I hope they sue your asses off for blatent and constructive
violation of trademark laws.
If you had anything of real value it would stand on its own,
you would not need to trash the work of others in order to
make you look good.
You have some very inferior washing powder I think.
Why didn't you just write a book?
sr
Steve Ralph
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote in message
news:1125700807....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Excuse me, but this was not the point.
> If you want to believe that the Puja causes
> the effectiveness of the technique, you are
> free to believe this.
>
> My point is different.
> I would like to know why we are supposed
> to violate law by talking about TM.
You ignorant half wit. You are not *talking*
about TM, you are trying to *sell* an alternative.
Forget the legal shite, look to your grubby little
self.
SR
scie...@ipotesi.net
Ha ha... look at youself, please
> This is just self-justification
and whining
Whining?! Yes, for the TM organization,
that is dead. Don't you realize this?
Your answers are off-topic because you
are not able to accept the truth:
TM does not exist anymore.
>I hope they sue your asses off for blatent and constructive
>violation of trademark laws.
Ha ha, nasty kid.
I just discovered that comparative advertising
is allowed in the USA and trademark can be used
in advertising, even in keyword advertising (this
answers my previous question on Lionel Ritchie
and Pepsi Cola).
Don't you practice TM?
You seem so nervous...
>Why didn't you just write a book?
Because I don't take orders from you.
Regards,
Fabrizio Coppola
LawsonE
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote in message
news:1125684913.0...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
You claim this:
The Natural Stress Relief technique preserves the full effectiveness of
Maharishi's TM and is 3 to 4 times more effective than Benson's relaxation
response and other techniques, including autogenic training, self-hypnosis,
audio brainwave techniques, meditation techniques.
LawsonE
"Bhairitu" <nooz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:321Se.6572$z2....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I don't know if this is relevant or not, but the site makes this claim
without backing it up in any way:
Mike Doughney
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote:
>We are writing several things, including that our stress relief
>technique achieves the same psycho-phsyological effects of TM.
>
>You may disagree with this statement, but I can't see how it can be
>illegal, just because we compare our technique with TM or even because
>we wrote the words TM and Transcendental Meditation!
>
>I wonder why websites minet.org , trancenet.org and suggestibility.org
>are still there, even though they name, quote and despise TM.
I'm the creator of minet.org, not a lawyer, and the following is not
legal advice.
minet.org and the other sites are referencing TM by name, usually in
the process of criticizing the movement's products and methods, and
these sites are not selling any product or service in any way in the
process of referencing TM.
I haven't inspected your website, but I can tell you that at the
moment you are selling a product or service and you make reference to
the products of some other company or entity and their trademarks, the
legal status becomes quite another matter, particularly if the
reference can be taken as causing 'confusion' and that word
'confusion' is meant in a particular legal sense.
>Thanks for explaining me what we allowed to do, according to law.
>Are they trying to scare us? And nothing else?
If you are serious about what you are doing I urge you to avoid
trolling the net for advice and instead obtain competent legal help,
which you'll probably have to pay for. This does not mean that the TM
movement has any legitimate claim, only that given the intricacies of
trademark law and the fact that you're working across international
borders this is a question not adequately answered unless you go to
the experts.
scie...@ipotesi.net
This "trolling" of mine (as you describe it) was only a first
attempt to understand the meaning of this legal action
(I really did not understand why it has been started).
Now we can proceed to a more serious research for
legal advice. However, I understand that this problem
can be easily fixed.
As you say, the possible problem is about "confusion",
that's all. Trademark can be named and even used in
advertising (it's called "comparative advertising").
So, we are not allowed to say:
"We teach you TM for $25.00".
But we can say something like this:
"Instead of spending $2500.00 (that is
an absurd amount) to learn TM and giving money to
people that are going into a blind sectarianism, learn
the Natural Stress Relief technique, that was created
by a former TM teacher and it's even simpler than TM.
You can learn this new technique at home for $25.00
only: this has shown to achieve the same
psycho-physiological effects of the expensive TM.
Resuts have been verified through analysis of Galvanic
Skin Response, respiration patterns, EEG patterns,
ECG patterns and EMG patterns".
This does not infringe any law, as I understand.
I will look for confirmation and for further legal advice.
Thanks again for your help.
I hated you in the past, for creating minet.org and
for criticing TM and Maharishi, but now you seem
much more logical and reliable than many TM-ers
of today.
Fabrizio Coppola
http://www.natural-stress-relief.com
tantr...@aol.com
> Attorneys often use scare tactics whether they are true or not. I would
> opinions from other attorneys. The TMO has some deep pockets if they
> are wrong. :)
Legal advice is always good. However, many former TM
teachers who are now teaching independently of the
TM organization have stood up to the scare tactics
and refused to be intimidated into stopping. The TM
organization's lawyers have failed to follow through
and take any of these cases to court.
The reasons for this are many, but the most important
is that they really *don't* want a court case about
the "uniqueness" of TM, because it's pretty clear that
they could lose it. Also, the organization kept such
sloppy records that they have no copies of the "agree-
ments" that some TM teachers signed, and thus couldn't
try to enforce them even if they were legal (they aren't
because the signer never got a copy).
That said, I agree with the comments made here about
riding on the coattails of other techniques. It just
makes you look sleazy. If what you're selling has
value, present it based on its own value. If you're
convinced that it's superior, why demean yourself by
comparing it to something you feel is inferior?
Bottom line for me is that you, like the TM organization,
are selling something that should be taught for free,
and still is by individuals and organizations who are
more concerned with helping people than in making a buck.
Steve Ralph
<scie...@ipotesi.net> wrote in message
news:1125711655.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Wow, you are just full of it
>
> Ha ha... look at youself, please
>
>> This is just self-justification
> and whining
>
> Whining?! Yes, for the TM organization,
> that is dead. Don't you realize this?
> Your answers are off-topic because you
> are not able to accept the truth:
> TM does not exist anymore.
Yes, whining and self-justification, nothing more.
sr
Bhairitu
for a donation. Otherwise it might cut into time you need to support
yourself. In that event charging is quite fair. In fact I used to do
Jyotish readings for free to get experience and people who got the free
readings were telling me "you should charge for this."
tantr...@aol.com
> >
> People should charge for their time not the technique. Or you can ask
> for a donation. Otherwise it might cut into time you need to support
> yourself. In that event charging is quite fair. In fact I used to do
> Jyotish readings for free to get experience and people who got the free
> readings were telling me "you should charge for this."
I won't get into it again because it's an old and tired
argument, but I still feel that there is a payoff for
both student and teacher when the teaching is done for
free. If, as a teacher of self discovery and meditation,
you can possibly feel that you need to be compensated for
the time you spend doing it, in my opinion you're doing
it wrong.
amo...@iname.com
> ... And you're *still* flying on Maharishi's
> coattails to sell your 'product'.
This is what the Maharishi movement says.
Unfortunately, what the Maharishi movement says
is not always the Truth.
The Natural Stress Relief technique is well known
in Italy as the "Tecnica Naturale AntiStress" and
does stand on its own:
http://www.antistress.usa.gl/antistress/forum2.htm
Important press articles or interviews:
http://www.segreto.net/segreto/repubblicasalute.htm
http://www.kwsalute.kataweb.it/Notizia/0,1044,4792,00.html
http://www.segreto.net/segreto/intervista.htm
The Scientia guys have been loyal to Maharishi for
20 years. The Maharishi movement has never recognized
the validity of the work of the Scientia guys, even after the
publication of the best-seller "Il segreto dell'universo",
largely about TM, in 2002:
http://www.segreto.net
In 2003, they abandoned the Maharishi movement, as
everybody who is not fanatic does (including Chopra,
it's just an example).
If the Maharishi movement believes that quoting
trademark terms is against US laws, this does not mean
that is true. Comparison advertising is allowed
by US law (15 USC 1125)
Giancarlo
(I happen to be an attorney in Italy)
John Manning also wrote:
> ... to hanging on
> the coattails of others to make their
> position. I would think that if your methods
> are so successful as you apparently think
> they are, your program could *stand on its own*.
> ... *I* think that you guys are
> trying to fly on Maharishi's coattails to
> promote your operation because you can't
> *stand on your own*.
Steve Ralph wrote:
> ... I hope they sue your asses off for blatent and
> constructive violation of trademark laws.
> If you had anything of real value it would stand on
> its own, you would not need to trash the work of
> others in order to make you look good.
tantric...@aol.com wrote:
> ... I agree with the comments made here about
Bhairitu
the "perceived value" argument. If I teach a weekend meditation course
how many people will take the course if I charge:
1) nothing
2) $25
3) $125
4) $1200
preman...@yahoo.co.uk
the kingdom of heaven and all else will be added unto you'. MMY used to
quote many such saying of Jesus. Question is, when is someone going to
throw the tables over in Vlodrop? I'm game!
John Manning
Don't they have intense security? I wouldn't
bother. Jesus also said something about
houses being built on sand.
preman...@yahoo.co.uk
But I reassure myself that 'turning the tables' is also a powerful
metaphor ....