"scientology" tm expired in Fla
mgo...@chello.nl
Trademark
SCIENTOLOGY
Document Number
T00280
Date Filed 01/03/1984
Expiration Date 01/03/2004
Last Event
EXPIRATION Event Date Filed
02/05/2004 Event Effective Date
NONE
First Used in Florida
NONE First Used Anywhere
NONE Status
INACTIVE
Mark Used In Connection With
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners
Name & Address
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
1710 IVAR AVE., SUITE 1100
LOS ANGELES CA 90028
=====
Trademark
SCIENTOLOGY
Document Number
T00281
Date Filed 01/03/1984
Expiration Date 01/03/2004
Last Event
EXPIRATION Event Date Filed
02/05/2004 Event Effective Date
NONE
First Used in Florida
NONE First Used Anywhere
NONE Status
INACTIVE
Mark Used In Connection With
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Owners
Name & Address
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
% TRADEMARK DEPT.
1710 IVAR AVE., SUITE 1100
LOS ANGELES CA 90028
--
Mike Gormez
- WISE is Scientology recruitment in the workplace http://stop-wise.biz/
- Scientology and health http://www.whyaretheydead.net/
- 'Religious' child abuse and neglect http://www.taxexemptchildabuse.net/
- Hubbard on psychs http://whyaretheydead.net/misc/scientology_hatred_of_psychiatry.html
ptsc
>Not one but two! How serious is this? Florida Department of State:
My guess is not very, since the federal registration would, I think, trump it.
Here's one of many related trademarks and its status information
Typed Drawing
Word Mark SCIENTOLOGY
Goods and Services IC 041. US 107. G & S: EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NAMELY,
CONDUCTING COURSES IN PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION. FIRST USE: 19511100. FIRST USE IN
COMMERCE: 19511100
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 73692844
Filing Date October 30, 1987
Current Filing Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Published for Opposition February 28, 1989
Registration Number 1540928
Registration Date May 23, 1989
Owner (REGISTRANT) RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER NON-PROFIT RELIGIOUS
CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1710 IVAR AVENUE LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA 90028
Attorney of Record JOAN KUPERSMITH LARKIN
Prior Registrations 0898018;1306997;1318717;1329474;1342353;AND OTHERS
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Affidavit Text SECT 15. SECT 8 (6-YR).
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE
Thank you for your request. Here are the latest results from the TARR web
server.
This page was generated by the TARR system on 2004-07-01 03:27:20 ET
Serial Number: 73692844
Registration Number: 1540928
Mark (words only): SCIENTOLOGY
Standard Character claim: No
Current Status: Section 8 and 15 affidavits have been accepted and acknowledged.
Date of Status: 1995-11-21
Filing Date: 1987-10-30
Transformed into a National Application: No
Registration Date: 1989-05-23
Register: Principal
Law Office Assigned: TMEO Law Office # 6
If you are the applicant or applicant's attorney and have questions about this
file, please contact the Trademark Assistance Center at
TrademarkAss...@uspto.gov
Current Location: 900 -Warehouse (Newington)
Date In Location: 1995-12-13
LAST APPLICANT(S)/OWNER(S) OF RECORD
1. RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
Address:
RELIGIOUS TECHNOLOGY CENTER
1710 IVAR AVENUE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90028
United States
Legal Entity Type: NON-PROFIT RELIGIOUS CORPORATION
State or Country Where Organized: California
GOODS AND/OR SERVICES
EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, NAMELY, CONDUCTING COURSES IN PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION
International Class: 041
First Use Date: 1951-11-00
First Use in Commerce Date: 1951-11-00
Basis: 1(a)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Prior Registration Number(s):
898018
1306997
1318717
1329474
1342353
MADRID PROTOCOL INFORMATION
(NOT AVAILABLE)
PROSECUTION HISTORY
1995-11-21 - Section 8 (6-year) accepted & Section 15 acknowledged
1995-03-23 - Section 8 (6-year) and Section 15 Filed
1989-05-23 - Registered - Principal Register
1989-02-28 - Published for opposition
1989-01-28 - Notice of publication
1988-11-23 - Approved for Pub - Principal Register (Initial exam)
1988-11-02 - Correspondence Received In Law Office
1988-09-12 - Correspondence Received In Law Office
1988-03-09 - Non-final action mailed
1988-01-28 - Case file assigned to examining attorney
CONTACT INFORMATION
Correspondent
JOAN KUPERSMITH LARKIN (Attorney of record)
JOAN KUPERSMITH LARKIN
SMALL LARKIN & KIDDE
10940 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
EIGHTEENTH FLOOR
LOS ANGELES, CA 90024
United States
Android Cat
> Not one but two! How serious is this? Florida Department of State:
>
>
> Trademark
>
>
> SCIENTOLOGY
DIANETICS as well.
I noticed this back in Feb/Mar but didn't want to say anything publically in
case the RTC had really _goofed the floof_. I have a vague memory that they
once let something like this expire but then "retro-filed" the paperwork--so
the longer it went uncorrected, the better.
Alas, since then, I did check with the http://www.uspto.gov/ site, and their
trademarks are still .. valid .. across the US. I'm not sure how the US
system works or why a state would be keeping track of trademarks vs the
federal government. Could anyone explain the difference (and do these
expiries matter at all)?
*sigh* it would have been fun to torpedo an Avagram that depended on those
trademarks.
--
Ron of that ilk.
ptsc
wrote:
>mgo...@chello.nl wrote:
>> Not one but two! How serious is this? Florida Department of State:
>> Trademark
>> SCIENTOLOGY
>DIANETICS as well.
>I noticed this back in Feb/Mar but didn't want to say anything publically in
>case the RTC had really _goofed the floof_. I have a vague memory that they
>once let something like this expire but then "retro-filed" the paperwork--so
>the longer it went uncorrected, the better.
>Alas, since then, I did check with the http://www.uspto.gov/ site, and their
>trademarks are still .. valid .. across the US. I'm not sure how the US
>system works or why a state would be keeping track of trademarks vs the
>federal government. Could anyone explain the difference (and do these
>expiries matter at all)?
I'm not sure what it matters in terms of actual enforcement, but there are
often smaller or local businesses which have a name like "Ace Business
Supplies," and only do business locally or within a single state. A name
like this is common enough that it will occur in many places, but someone
might wish to protect it solely in the state in which they actually do
business rather than messing with the USPTO.
I don't know whether there is a state cause of action for trademarks
in Florida or whether it would be federal. I assume that states don't
keep track of this just for their own amusement, though. It probably
just creates a record of having made the claim, like the federal system.
As to why Scientology, an international organization, would register
trademarks state by state, it is just the kind of thing they do. From
the Florida results, they clearly don't place as high a premium on
these redundant registrations as they do on the federal and international
ones. (There are at least 30 pages of just symbols and words that
they have trademarked in virtually every country on the face of the
earth with a trademark registry.)
Zinj
says...
<snip>
> Alas, since then, I did check with the http://www.uspto.gov/ site, and their
> trademarks are still .. valid .. across the US. I'm not sure how the US
> system works or why a state would be keeping track of trademarks vs the
> federal government. Could anyone explain the difference (and do these
> expiries matter at all)?
>
> *sigh* it would have been fun to torpedo an Avagram that depended on those
> trademarks.
Why waste a perfectly good torpedo, since they don't float in the first
place?
I've gotten any number of ava/ho grams concerning 'trademark'
violations; not *one* of which was worth a pickled poop. Most hilarious
yet confused have been the ones attempting to address (specious)
'Trademark Infringement' using the DMCA, which is about like trying to
scratch your butt by rubbing your head on the wall.
The only times ava/ho grams have had any effect is when the particular
host decided to 'cave' regardless of actual merit, which is of course
far too frequent.
A case in point is:
http://www.cafeshops.com/zinjifar
Years back Ava tried to use DMCA to get cafepress to remove the
'Narconon Is Scientology' logo from the 'shop', and almost succeeded
till Cafepress actually *thought* about 'Hey, what the hell does
'trademark' have to do with *copyright*???'
Besides, anyone who would think that a blood dripping hypo over a dollar
signed 'Scientology' was likely to confuse people as to whether it was
'officially Scientology®' would be beyond 'reasonable help'.
By the way, cafepress is running a sale on some merchandise till July 4
or so, and the shirts and stuff there are profit free, so feel free to
pick one up. They're pretty relevant currently :)
Zinj
--
You can lead a Clam to Reason, but you Can't Make him Think