Re: Avatar Course by Harry Palmer
Ronald Cools
Out of sheer curiosity I downloaded the Avatar Mini Course 2. (See URL
above). I discovered how manipulative Stars Edge is. Under the title of the
article "Basis Attention Management, Help for a Suffering Planet" is
printed: "The following article first appeared in Inside Avatar. It
describes an application of the next exercise in the Basic Attention
Management Course."
That's true. But what Stars Edge does _not_ tell is that they _deleted_ the
following statement of Harry Palmer in this article: "More than one Avatar
graduate has found himself or herself with a moral conflict between
compassion for the suffering of a fellow creature and honoring the
confidential materials agreement. More than one has confessed to attempting
an emergency CHP Initiation (Creation Handling Procedure) on someone in
distress." [See:
http://www.avataroverdrive.com/inside_avatar/i_a_5/help.htm ]
Of course Star's Edge deleted this ugly statement of Harry Palmer from PR
point of view. Because his words show Palmers' sleezy Scientology colours.
Talking in terms of "confession" is very Scientology a like. This are
Palmers ways to control people by making them scared. That is why Stars Edge
deleted this ugly paragraph of Harry Palmer from "Basic Attention
Management". But of course, they did not say in this Mini Course that they
deleted it. How sneaky.
Also Harry Palmers' profile is still incomplete in this Mini Course. 15
years being the President of the Church of Scientology of the Mission Elmira
can not be ignored. But Stars Edge still hides Palmers' Scientology past...
And what a President
he was:(
Ronald Cools
www.AvatarScam.com
Ronald Cools
testimonial on the Wizard site.
I never came across this quote of Harry Palmer. Can you provide me with a
source? Please do so. Maybe you can convince me. If you can maybe you can
change my mind about certain things. But as far as I know, Star's Edge tries
to hide the Scientology background of Palmer from the very beginning in
their promotional materials.
I know a Dutch student who told me, that he was _prohibit_ to talk even
about the Scientology background of Palmer during a Dutch Avatar Course. He
had to promise to his Dutch Avatar Masters before taking the course, _not_
to talk about the Scientology past of Harry during the Avatar course. When
this student did talk about this ''hot'' topic, his Avatar Masters said to
him: ''you just want to destroy everthing that is beautiful''... He left the
course... What is the fear of these Dutch Avatar Masters?
Ronald
www.AvatarScam.com
Ronald Cools
A very popular but former Star's Edge trainer and Ph.D. told me privately,
that s/he asked Harry and Avra about their Scientology background they
agreed that they were involved in Scientology. Despite of this, this Star's
Edge Trainer and Ph.D left the organization Star's Edge. How come?
And why did Star's Edge trainer Mieke van der Heusen Linden left the
organization? I mean: Mieke was the one who introduced Avatar in Holland 14
years ago!
Read this testimonal of an Avatar Master and Wizard who still is part of the
network of Star's Edge International.
S/he says to me in private: ''The tools are wonderful, but the system that
delivers them is CORRUPT. I welcome Eldon Braun's Source Course.'' Strange
kind of testimonial eh?
Ronald
www.AvatarScam.com
Ronald Cools
Nice try. But you can not compare Christian, Hindu, Taoist, Buddhist and
psychological roots with the roots of $cientology.
$cientology is very controversial. Harry Palmer and his Avatar are listed on
the ''list of enemies of Scientology''.
Palmer is declared a ''suppressive person'' and Avatar a ''suppresive
organization'' on this List of Enemies of Scientology.
The other religions you mention don't have such weird lists.
You know what it means to be a ''suppresive person'' and/or a ''suppressive
group?'' Ever heared of ''Fair Game"?
Ronald Cools
www.AvatarScam.om
<Inside...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:1105287300.5...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Gee Ronald, if you know that stuff it can't be very hidden.
>
> What you don't know about is Harry's Christian, Hindu, Taoist,
> Buddhist, Psychology past. He really has been living behind your back.
>
> Here's a quote from Harry: "I know there is some upset around the
> Church of Scientology, but I really enjoyed studying L. Ron Hubbard."
> That's not very hidden, is it?
>
> I think SE left out the paragraph because it didn't fit...or maybe
> someone just hit the wrong key. It doesn't seem that sinister to me.
>
Ronald Cools
List.
See: http://www.ronsorg.nl/churchalterations/hitlist.htm
It looks like Scientology and Harry Palmer are real enemies.
Ronald Cools
www.AvatarScam.com
Ronald Cools
Why is the word 'rundown' from Avatar in Holland translated as ''De
toepassingen?'' Meaning: ''The applications''?
This is not the most appropriate translation eh? But from PR point of view,
the translators of Star's Edge did a nice try. Just to awide any association
with the scientology jargon, the word ''rundown'' was translated in the
Dutch words: ''De toepassingen''; meaning ''The applications''.
BTW: In Holland the word ''rundowns'' of $cientology is translated as
''Rundown''. Not ''toepassing" (application).
How come?
Ronald
www.AvatarScam.com
Ronald Cools
One thing seems obvious: $cientology consideres Harry Palmer and Avatar
enemies.
Otherwise he and his organizaton was not on this Enemies list.
If Palmer hates Scientology too, I really don't know; there is no evidence
for that/
But the connection between Palmer and Scientology is very obvious.
I don't know Harry very well indeed. But I heared from a former employee of
the Centre for Creative Learning in Elmira, that Harry Palmer put big
mirrors in front of his centre to awide 'negative' energy coming from the
church of $cientology.
So it looks like he considered them an enemy too those days, if this story
is true about Harry Palmer.
Best,
Ronald
Ronald Cools
Even in his book ''Creativism'' Harry Palmer tried to hide his Scientology
background.
Palmer wrote in ''Creativism": "There are nine people in the first test
group who agree to run the new procedures.
The group includes my wife and her staff at the Elmira Centre.''
Why such a vague definition of this Centre? Why call it ''Elmira Centre''
and not his true name: ''Centre for Creative Learning'' at Elmira? Palmer
wrote such a vague definition of this ''centre'' for a certain reason:
Palmer just wanted to awide any commotion about his quarrels with the Church
of Scientology. Yes, Harry Palmer got quarrels with the Church of
Scientology.
See this United States Court of Appeals:
http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf126.html and
http://www.xenu.net/archive/CourtFiles/occf134.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, a corporation; Religious
Technology
Center, a corporation; and Scientology Missions International, a
corporation,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The ELMIRA MISSION OF THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY, a corporation, a/k/a
Church of
Scientology, Mission of Elmira, a/k/a Dianetics Center, a/k/a
Scientology
Elmira, a/k/a Center for Creative Learning; Harry Palmer, an individual;
and
Avra Honey-Smith, an individual, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 537, Docket 85-7693.
United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit.
Argued Dec. 6, 1985.
Decided June 23, 1986.
International religious organization which brought trademark infringement
suit
against local religious organization moved for preliminary injunction to
restrain local organization from further infringement during pendency of
suit.
The United States District Court for the Western District of New York, 614
F.Supp. 500, Michael A. Telesca, J., denied motion, and international
organization appealed. The Court of Appeals, Cardamone, Circuit Judge,
held
that: (1) even if local organization, a licensee, had not in fact reduced
reputation associated with marks of international organization, mere
possibility that local organization could during interval prior to trial
depart
from teachings of international organization was irreparable harm
sufficient to
support issuance of the injunction, and (2) international organization
established probability of success on merits entitling it to preliminary
injunction, by making unrebutted case that it owned trademarks and
presenting
evidence establishing customer confusion.
Reversed and remanded with direction.
[1] FEDERAL COURTS
Appellate court may reverse ruling on preliminary injunction only when
district
court has abused its discretion by misinterpreting law, by committing a
clear
error of fact, or by erroneously fashioning substance or form of
injunction.
[2] TRADE REGULATION
Establishing high possibility of consumer confusion as to sponsorship
almost
inevitably establishes irreparable harm as an element necessary for
trademark
holder to be entitled to injunction; proof of such confusion also serves
as
additional evidence with respect to separate finding that must be made of
holder's likelihood of success on merits.
[3] TRADE REGULATION
In licensor/licensee case, reasons for issuing preliminary injunction for
trademark infringement are more compelling than in ordinary case; when in
licensing context unlawful use and consumer confusion have been
demonstrated,
finding of irreparable harm is automatic.
[4] TRADE REGULATION
Licensor, as holder of numerously federally registered trademarks and
service
marks, was entitled to strong presumption of marks' validity and of
ownership,
and, upon licensee's obtaining license to use marks, licensees acknowledged
marks' validity and licensor's superior rights to them.
[4] TRADE REGULATION
Licensor, as holder of numerously federally registered trademarks and
service
marks, was entitled to strong presumption of marks' validity and of
ownership,
and, upon licensee's obtaining license to use marks, licensees acknowledged
marks' validity and licensor's superior rights to them.
[4] TRADE REGULATION
Licensor, as holder of numerously federally registered trademarks and
service
marks, was entitled to strong presumption of marks' validity and of
ownership,
and, upon licensee's obtaining license to use marks, licensees acknowledged
marks' validity and licensor's superior rights to them.
[5] TRADE REGULATION
In order for preliminary injunction to issue restraining trademark
infringement, there must first be established an infringing use and a
probability of confusion as to ownership or sponsorship of product.
[6] TRADE REGULATION
Unauthorized use of mark by former licensee invariably threatens injury to
economic value of goodwill and reputation associated with licensor's mark,
and,
as a consequence, licensor who establishes likelihood of confusion as to
product sources in trademark infringement suit simultaneously demonstrates
requisite irreparable harm essential to obtaining preliminary injunction.
[7] TRADE REGULATION
International religious organization was not required to prove that local
religious organization, a terminated licensee, had departed from tenets of
religion in order to be entitled to preliminary injunction; rather, loss
of
control resulting from local organization's continued use of trade and
service
marks constituted irreparable harm in licensing context, because ability at
any
time to ensure compliance with agreement and to control local
organization's
activities was integral part of contract.
[8] TRADE REGULATION
Even if local religious organization, a licensee, had not in fact reduced
reputation associated with marks of international religious organization,
mere
possibility that local organization could during interval prior to trial
depart
from teachings of international organization was irreparable harm
sufficient to support issuance of the injunction.
[9] TRADE REGULATION
Licensor that establishes infringing use and consumer confusion in
trademark
suit brought against former licensee has proved irreparable harm as matter
of
law, for purpose of determining whether licensor is entitled to preliminary
injunction.
[10] TRADE REGULATION
International religious organization established probability of success on
merits entitling it to preliminary injunction restraining use of trade and
service marks by local religious organization, a terminated licensee, by
making
unrebutted case that it owned trademarks and presenting evidence
establishing
customer confusion.
[11] TRADE REGULATION
Once licensor authorizes licensee to use trademark in particular area,
licensor
has demonstrated desire to expand into that area, and, when licensee loses
authorization, licensor should not have to prove its intention to reerect a
new
presence in area in order to be entitled to preliminary injunction
restraining
trademark infringement in such area.
*40 Michael C. Elmer, Washington, D.C. (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner, Washington, D.C., Paul J. Yesawich, III, Kevin J. Arquit,
Harris, Beach, Wilcox, Rubin and Levey, Rochester, N.Y., Thomas M. Small,
Fulwider, Patton, Rieber, Lee & Utecht, Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for
plaintiffs-appellants.
Mark S. Nunn, Rochester, N.Y. (Weidman & Jordan, Rochester, N.Y., of
counsel),
for defendants-appellees.
Before LUMBARD, CARDAMONE and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
CARDAMONE, Circuit Judge:
This appeal is from a denial of a preliminary injunction. 614 F.Supp.
500. Appellants, who had licensed appellees to use their registered
trademarks, later terminated the appellees' authority. When the former
licensees continued their now unauthorized use, appellants brought a Lanham
Act
suit and sought a preliminary injunction. The issue in this case is
whether in
the licensor/licensee context irreparable harm automatically flows from a
finding of unlawful use and consumer confusion. Common sense plainly
suggests
that when a terminated franchisee's continued use of its former
franchisor's
trademarks results in demonstrated consumer confusion, the franchisor has
been
irreparably harmed. Hence, we reverse the order denying a preliminary
injunction and direct its issuance.
I
The facts are largely undisputed. Plaintiffs-appellants are three
California
corporations: Church of Scientology International (CSI) is the "Mother
Church"
for its 33 churches and 80 Missions in the United States; Scientology
Missions
International (SMI) is the head of the Missions; and Religious Technology
Center (RTC) is the owner and protector of the trademarks and service marks
of
the religion of Scientology. Defendants-appellees are Harry Palmer and
Avra
Honey-Smith, residents of Elmira, New York, and the Elmira Mission of the
Church of Scientology, a New York corporation. L. Ron Hubbard was the
founder
of and--until his recent death on January 24, 1986--reputedly controlled
the
Church of Scientology. Defendant Harry Palmer has since 1972 operated an
authorized Scientology Mission in Elmira. In 1975 the Elmira Mission
incorporated under the name "the Elmira Mission of the Church of
Scientology"
and the following year it was granted a license to use all Scientology
trademarks and service marks held and controlled by Mr. Hubbard. In
exchange
for that right, defendants were to pay ten percent of its income as a tithe
to
the Mission Office. Six years later Mr. Hubbard allegedly assigned his
rights
in all Scientology trademarks to RTC, which had been organized especially
to
own and protect all Scientology trademarks.
*41 RTC immediately increased the licensing fee. On September 9, 1982
defendants signed a new License Agreement requiring them to pay 15 percent
of
their income as well as additional fees to RTC in order to continue using
the
Scientology trademarks. The following day defendants renounced the
agreement,
but continued to use the marks and to pay the former ten percent tithe.
When
in November 1984 defendants ceased making any payments to the Mission
Office,
appellants promptly moved for arbitration provided for under the agreement.
Upon defendants' refusal to appear or participate, a default judgment was
rendered by the arbitrator against them on November 14, 1984. As further
efforts to resolve the dispute were unsuccessful, appellants on March 25,
1985
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western
District
of New York (Telesca, J.) and sought a preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs'
complaint broadly alleges claims for relief under the Trademark Act of 1946
(the Lanham Act), 15 U.S.C. ss 1051-1127 (1982), specifically ss 1114(1)
and 1125(a), and pendent actions under New York laws relating to trade and
service marks, trade names, dilution, unfair practices and breach of
contract.
The application for a preliminary injunction, limited to the Lanham Act
claims,
seeks to enjoin defendants from continuing to use appellants' marks pending
the
trial of the action.
The district court denied the motion on August 1, 1985. The court noted
that
a preliminary injunction may be granted only if the plaintiff makes a
showing
of irreparable harm. It concluded that the presumption of irreparable harm
which arises from a demonstration by a trademark plaintiff of a likelihood
of
confusion is rebuttable. The district judge then found plaintiffs had not
sufficiently shown that defendants' use of the trademarks would in any way
damage the business or reputation of the Church of Scientology. The
district
court further found inconsistencies in our traditional rule that a
trademark
plaintiff almost inevitably satisfies the required irreparable harm prong
upon
showing that the use of his mark or name by someone else in connection with
the
sale or offer of goods and/or services nearly identical to those of the
trademark-owner is likely to cause consumer confusion. The district court
denied the preliminary injunction having found irreparable harm absent. It
did
not therefore reach or consider the likelihood of success prong. This
expedited appeal followed.
II
A. Irreparable Harm
1. Traditional Rules
[1] An appellate court may reverse the grant or denial of a preliminary
injunction only when the district court has abused its discretion, by
misinterpreting the law, by committing a clear error of fact, or by
erroneously
fashioning the substance or form of the injunction. Coca-Cola v. Tropicana
Products, Inc., 690 F.2d 312, 315-16 (2d Cir.1982). A preliminary
injunction
should be granted where the moving party demonstrates (1) irreparable harm
and
(2) either (a) a probability of success on the merits or (b) sufficiently
serious questions going to the merits to make them fair grounds for
litigation
and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in the moving party's favor.
Id. at 314-15; Power Test Petroleum Distributors v. Calcu Gas, 754 F.2d
91, 95 (2d Cir.1985).
[2][3] For many years we have consistently held that a preliminary
injunction should usually issue when the use of a mark creates a likelihood
of
confusion in the consumers' minds as to the ownership or sponsorship of a
product. Our cases clearly say that establishing a high probability of
confusion as to sponsorship almost inevitably establishes irreparable harm.
Proof of such confusion also serves as additional evidence with respect to
the
separate finding that must be made of plaintiff's likelihood of success on
the
merits. Standard & Poor's Corp. Inc. v. Commodity Exchange Inc., 683 F.2d
704, 708 (2d Cir. 1982); see, e.g., Matter of Vuitton et Fils *42 S.A.,
606 F.2d 1, 4 (2d Cir.1979) (per curiam); Omega Importing Corp. v. Petri-
Kine Camera Company, 451 F.2d 1190, 1195 (2d Cir.1971). These rules govern
in
the ordinary case. The implication of the phrase that irreparable harm
"almost
inevitably" follows from likelihood of confusion leaves the door slightly
ajar
perhaps for those few cases in other trademark contexts where irreparable
harm
does not follow. The district court may have thought that this was one of
those rare cases. But in a licensor/licensee case the reasons for issuing
a
preliminary injunction for trademark infringement are more compelling than
in
the ordinary case. When in the licensing context unlawful use and consumer
confusion have been demonstrated, a finding of irreparable harm is
automatic.
[4] Appellants licensed their marks to defendants and then, according to
the
undisputed facts in the record, terminated defendants' authority to use
them
under the terms of a written contract between the parties. As holders of
numerous federally registered trademarks and service marks, appellants are
entitled to a strong presumption of their marks' validity and of ownership.
See American Home Products v. Johnson Chemical Co., 589 F.2d 103, 107 (2d
Cir.1978). Moreover, when defendants obtained a license to use the marks--
first in the mid-1970s from L. Ron Hubbard and later in 1982 from RTC--they
acknowledged the marks' validity and appellants' superior rights to them.
Such acknowledgment strongly reinforces appellants' claim that
infringement
would be caused if defendants, as former licensees, continued their use of
the
marks after their authorization to do so had been terminated. Burger King
Corp. v. Mason, 710 F.2d 1480, 1492-93 (11th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465
U.S. 1102, 104 S.Ct. 1599, 80 L.Ed.2d 130 (1984). The record reveals that
defendants continue their unlawful use of the identical marks registered to
appellants. Appellants clearly were and continue to be interested in the
use
of their marks in Elmira, since it was the Scientology Church itself which
first licensed defendants as an authorized Scientology Mission, thereby
evincing an interest in the Elmira market. In light of these undisputed
facts,
the district court found that consumer confusion would be caused by
defendants'
use of appellants' marks. Although the district court implied that
appellants
would probably succeed on the merits, it made no explicit finding on this
point.
2. Rule Applied By The District Court
In finding that no irreparable harm would be caused to appellants if the
injunction were denied, the district court read our cases as creating an
inconsistent pattern. This conclusion was bottomed on its interpretation
of
two recent decisions, Citibank, N.A. v. Citytrust, 756 F.2d 273 (2d
Cir.1985), and Bell & Howell: Mamiya Co. v. Masel Supply Co., 719 F.2d 42
(2d Cir.1983). From its reading of those cases, the district court held
that a
finding of irreparable harm no longer automatically follows from a finding
that
the defendant is using plaintiffs' marks and that consumers are likely to
be
confused by that use. Rather, it believed a court must focus on the type
of
consumer confusion likely to be caused to determine whether the irreparable
harm prong has been satisfied before a preliminary injunction may issue.
It
held that the confusion caused by the fact that consumers were led to
believe
they were dealing with an authorized or licensed distributor would not be
enough to find irreparable injury, unless specific economic or reputational
injury could be demonstrated.
[5] These two cases did not create an exception to our traditional rule
that
a finding of irreparable harm follows from a trademark plaintiff's showing
of
infringing use and likelihood of confusion. Citibank essentially stands
for
the proposition that absent a likelihood of confusion between two banks
operating for years in the same market with the similar names of
"Citytrust"
and "Citicorp", and because of plaintiff's substantial delay in seeking an
injunction, irreparable harm did not follow. Id. at 277. Again, in
Bell & Howell, we noted that: "On the basis of the present record,
irreparable injury may well not be present *43 herein since there would
appear to be little confusion, if any, as to the origin of the goods...."
719 F.2d at 46. These cases acknowledge the cornerstone of the rule
governing issuance of a preliminary injunction, that is to say, there must
first be established an infringing use and a probability of confusion as to
the
ownership or sponsorship of a product.
In a recent case discussing the standards for granting preliminary
injunctive
relief, we reiterated the traditional rule that irreparable injury may be
found
where " 'there is any likelihood that an appreciable number of ordinarily
prudent purchasers are likely to be misled, or indeed simply confused, as
to
the source of the goods in question.' " Joseph Scott Co. v. Scott Swimming
Pools, Inc., 764 F.2d 62, 66 (2d Cir.1985) (quoting McGregor-Doniger, Inc.
v. Drizzle Inc., 599 F.2d 1126, 1130 (2d Cir.1979)). The district court's
misperception of our holdings caused it also to ignore the fact that a
licensor's plea for injunctive relief is stronger than the ordinary
trademark
plaintiff's and--because of the necessity of licensor control--irreparable
harm
always flows from unlawful use and confusion. Since Palmer continues to
teach
by the tenets of the Scientology religion, as he had while an authorized
licensee, the trial court found that defendants would not damage the
economic
value of the goodwill and reputation associated with appellants' mark, and
that
the courses and services offered by the Elmira Mission would be in no way
inferior to, or even different from, those being provided by authorized
missions and churches.
3. Rule in Trademark Infringement Suits
[6] The unauthorized use of a mark by a former licensee invariably
threatens
injury to the economic value of the goodwill and reputation associated with
a
licensor's mark. As a consequence, a licensor who establishes a likelihood
of
confusion as to product source in a trademark infringement suit
simultaneously
demonstrates the requisite irreparable harm essential to obtaining a
preliminary injunction.
In Power Test Petroleum Distributors v. Calcu Gas, 754 F.2d at 95, we said
that irreparable harm exists in a trademark case when the party seeking the
preliminary injunction "shows that it will lose control over the reputation
of
its trademark pending trial." (Citing 2 McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair
Competition s 30.15 (2d ed. 1984)). Control of the trademark is crucial in
the
licensing context because a licensor who fails to monitor its mark risks a
later determination that it has been abandoned. Id. at 97. " 'If a
trademark owner allows licensees to depart from its quality [or other]
standards, the public will be misled, and the trademark will cease to have
utility as an informational device.' " Id. (quoting Kentucky Fried
Chicken Corp. v. Diversified Packaging Corp., 549 F.2d 368, 380 (5th
Cir.1977)).
A trademark licensor has a particular interest in controlling the use of
its
mark by its licensees in order to preserve the mark's quality and its
continued
vitality. The Scientology Church, for example, has always believed it
critical
to monitor the services provided by Palmer as a means of protecting its
marks,
and to dictate the standards by which Palmer preaches the Scientology
faith.
The 1982 license agreement gave RTC the right continuously to monitor and
control Scientology's marks. Defendants themselves acknowledged the
existence
of licensor control in the September 9, 1982 agreement they entered into
with
appellants. That agreement explicitly provided:
(d) [appellants] shall have the right to monitor all operations of
MISSION
with respect to the Marks, inspect all books, records and facilities
pertaining
to use of the Marks and receive sample specimens and summaries of
literature,
publications and product, using the Marks in reasonable numbers and with
reasonable frequency to insure compliance with all standards,
specifications
and guidelines.
[7] Thus, plaintiffs did not need to prove that defendants had departed
from
the tenets of the religion to monitor their activities. The ability at any
time to insure *44 compliance with the agreement and to control defendants'
activities was an integral part of the contract. Denying a preliminary
injunction in this case--where the district court found a likelihood of
confusion--puts the Church's reputation beyond its own control. And, it is
that loss of control which is the very thing that constitutes irreparable
harm
in the licensing context.
[8] To support its denial of injunctive relief, the district court stated
that appellants had not established that defendants had in fact reduced the
reputation associated with the marks. On the contrary, without a
preliminary
injunction, appellants will be unable to control the use of their mark by
unauthorized licensees; the mere possibility that defendants could during
the
interval until trial depart from the teachings of the Church is sufficient
to
warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. See Grand Lodge, Etc. v.
Eureka Lodge No. 5, Etc., 114 F.2d 46, 48 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 311 U.S.
709, 61 S.Ct. 319, 85 L.Ed. 461 (1940) (to allow a former "Elk" Lodge that
had
seceded from the general organization to continue using the name would
"subject
plaintiff in the public mind to responsibility for the action of a group
over
which it has no further control."). In the eyes of the Scientology Church,
Palmer and the Elmira Mission he operates have seceded from the "Mother"
Church. As such, they can no longer be relied upon to be true to its
teachings, nor are they subject to its control.
In National Bd. of Y.M.C.A. v. Flint Y.M.C.A., 764 F.2d 199, 201 (6th
Cir.1985), it was precisely because the National YMCA organization had
acquiesced in the use of its marks by unaffiliated or suspended local YMCA
organizations that the court refused to issue a preliminary injunction.
The
initial showing of acquiescence in the use of the mark by former affiliates
and
lack of competition in products or services precluded a finding of
confusion or
the concomitant likelihood of success on the merits. Id. at 201. Hence,
once a trademark owner loses control of its mark by failing zealously to
watch
over its use by others--or by not objecting to its unauthorized use--the
reputation associated with the mark is reduced. Here, there is no evidence
that appellants as licensors acquiesced in defendants' unauthorized use.
The
evidence is the opposite. Thus, allowing defendants the opportunity to
reduce
the marks' reputational value and goodwill by its continued unauthorized
use
constitutes the irreparable harm that is requisite to the issuance of the
preliminary injunction.
Finally, the public interest is especially served by issuing a preliminary
injunction against a former licensee as the licensee's status increases the
probability of consumer confusion. A licensee or franchisee who once
possessed
authorization to use the trademarks of its licensor or franchisor becomes
associated in the public's mind with the trademark holder. When such
party, as
defendants here, loses its authorization yet continues to use the mark, the
potential for consumer confusion is greater than in the case of a random
infringer. Consumers have already associated some significant source
identification with the licensor. In this way the use of a mark by a
former
licensee confuses and defrauds the public. Burger King Corp. v. Mason, 710
F.2d at 1493; United States Jaycees v. Philadelphia Jaycees, 639 F.2d 134
(3d Cir.1981); Professional Golfers Ass'n v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co.,
514 F.2d 665 (5th Cir.1975); McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition s
257 (2d ed. 1984).
[9] For these reasons, a licensor that establishes infringing use and
consumer confusion in a trademark suit brought against its former licensee
has
proved irreparable harm as a matter of law.
B. Probability of Success
[10] Having found irreparable harm, a court must make a separate and
distinct finding that plaintiff has established a probability of success on
the
merits. Although the district court made no explicit finding that
appellants
were likely to prevail on the merits, it did find and the record revealed
that
defendants continue to use *45 the identical registered trademarks that
they
had previously licensed. Defendants raise the defense that the signed
transfer
of rights by L. Ron Hubbard to RTC was forged and thus invalid. This
assertion
is unsupported by any credible evidence. Because the Church has made an
unrebutted case that it owns the Scientology trademarks, plaintiffs are
likely
to prevail on their claim for trademark infringement. Moreover, the
district
court's finding of confusion in this case is additional evidence that
strongly
supports our determination that plaintiffs have established a probability
of
success on the merits. See Standard & Poor's Corp., 683 F.2d at 708.
Since
both irreparable harm and likelihood of success have been satisfied, the
injunction should issue.
III Findings of Fact
If defendants' use of the Scientology Trademarks posed a risk of diverting
business from appellants by misleading the consumer, the district court
said it
would find irreparable harm in the economic injury this diversion would
cause.
But, the court believed the risk of lost business was not present because
the
parties are not in direct economic competition with one another; no other
Scientology Mission had been established within 150 miles of Elmira.
Because
irreparable harm was established as a matter of law without examining
whether
defendants are in direct economic competition with plaintiffs, we need not
decide this issue. Nevertheless, the district court's factual findings are
highly questionable.
Although recognizing that an injunction should issue if there is any
probability that a trademark holder desires to expand into the area where
defendant operates, see Foxtrap, Inc. v. Foxtrap, Inc., 671 F.2d 636, 640
(D.C.Cir.1982); Dawn Donuts Co. v. Hart's Food Stores, Inc., 267 F.2d 358,
362 (2d Cir.1959), the district court found no evidence of appellants'
planned
expansion into Elmira to compete with defendants. "All of the evidence
presented to this Court indicates that the impact of the Elmira Mission's
activities is entirely confined to an area where the plaintiffs have had no
competing business interests at all." Such finding is certainly suspect.
[11] This proposition may be valid where the trademark owner has no prior
entry--and thus has done nothing to create a reputation--in the relevant
market. But here the district court ignored the fact that the Scientology
Church, as licensor to the Elmira Mission, has demonstrated a strong
interest
in maintaining its presence in the Elmira area. Evidence of this fact is
the
license it granted to defendants since 1972 to be its authorized licensee
in
that area. Until defendants renounced their agreement with appellants,
they
acted as the Scientology Church's presence in Elmira. Appellants appear to
desire to be present in the Elmira area where there is a demonstrated
interest
in their teachings. Now that Palmer has breached his agreement and moved
outside the Church, this area falls within appellants' area of natural
expansion. National Lampoon, Inc. v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 376
F.Supp. 733, 747 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 497 F.2d 1343 (2d Cir.1974). Once a
licensor authorizes a licensee to use the mark in a particular area, he has
demonstrated his desire to expand into that area, and when his licensee
loses
that authorization, he should not have to prove its intention to re-erect a
new
presence in the area. Thus, defendants present a risk of diverting
business
from appellants by misleading consumers into thinking the Elmira mission is
authorized by the Scientology Church. Foxtrap, Inc., 671 F.2d at 640
("Under the Lanham Act, a federal registrant is entitled to enjoin a remote
junior user of the mark if there is a likelihood of the registrant's entry
into
the disputed area.").
IV
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying a preliminary injunction and
remand
the matter to the district court with a direction to it to issue the
preliminary injunction pending trial.
Ronald
www.AvatarScam.com
Ronald Cools
My main point is: Harry Palmer tried to _avoid_ any connection with his
Centre for Creative learning at Elmira.
That is why he relabeled it ''Elmira Centre'' in his book ''Creativism'',
and not ''Centre for Creative learning'' at Elmira.
It is so obvious. Yes, I know about Margie. Margie did sales and was a
trainer also. Here is an interview with Margie Hoffman taken from the
magazine ''The Heretic''. See the scans of the original interview from the
Heretic at: http://perso.wanadoo.fr/eldon.braun/elmira/
--------------------------------------------------------------
THE HERETIC
An open forum for Spiritual Investigation
February 16, 1988 Issue XIV
INTERVIEW WITH MARGIE HOFFMAN
Q: What was your role in the Avatar organization?
A: It was sales. I was also a trainer, but mostly sales. I was the one who
opened up the West Coast from Elmira and I got people
from all over to come to Elmira.
Q: Why did you leave?
A: It wasn't like I thought it was going to be. I started speaking my mind
and it was unpopular and Harry and his wife Avra, were extremely rude to me.
But most of all, there were many people in Elmira who were quite upset
because they had paid thousands of dollars for services that no longer were
going to be delivered to them. They were still paying loans, and some were
having to file bankrupty. I didn't think it was right.
Q: Have other staff left?
A: Yes. There were three other people that left. He was paying them 100 to
150 dollar per week - if that, I'm guessing high. I personally was paid
well, but it is because I demanded a raise in April.
Q: Are these people speaking out about Avatar?
A: Nobody is really speaking out about Avatar; it's a very workable tool.
It's just we object that the only one who profits is Harry Palmer. Some have
gone to labor boards, some to the local newspaper. But you have to
understand that we were very loyal to Harry, and that was why we got paid so
little, because we were loyal to him.
Q: What was Palmer's response to people going to the newspaper?
A: He told the reporter that the reason that he let all of us go -we quit,
he didn't let us go- was that we had drug problems. And he referred to us as
''bleeding hearts" and "puppies that are weaning". He also said that he made
a lot of money with other companies and that his staff had nothing to do
with him making money. (See Elmira Star Gazette, Feb 2,3,4 & 7).
Q: How succesful was Thoughtstorm?
A: I don't have statistics but he had been saying that the people that he
went into the Thoughtstorm business with, people who were with the Creative
Learning Center, didn't support him and so he lost $40,000 on it. I don't
know of anywhere the Thoughtstorm is being used besides Avatar centers.
Q: Is Avatar a replay of Scientology and is Palmer a replay of Hubbard?
A: It certainly does have shades of Scientology. WHEN AVATAR CAME OUT HE
SAID THIS IS GOING TO BE THE ONLY COURSE YOU'RE EVER GOING TO NEED AND IF
THERE'S ANYTHING NEW THAT COMES OUT WE'LL JUST INCLUDE IT IN THE MATERIALS,
YOU WON'T HAVE TO BUY ANYTHING. (R.C.: Caps Lock are mine)
And then the Masters Course came out and there were things that were
exclusive as far as case handling. And now out comes the $20,000 "Wizards''
course.
[Trivia note: Avatar was the chief character in the animated movie Wizards.]
As far as him being like Hubbard, let me read this thing he just put out to
promote the Wizard course: "On a somewhat grimmer not, I know this world has
some bent pieces that compulsively create demons of fear and hate when they
imagine your power to free good people from their paranoid webs of
intrigue....From the tangled human wreckage that laughingly passes for a
civilization you are salvaging some of the most beautiful, incredibly
creative beings in the whole galaxy... So let them snarl and complain... and
I'll keep them busy while you continue to pick the flowers... As many of you
know, the rapidity of Avatar's growth has often left me spinning... and
while I certainly am not complaining... the eye of the storm has thaught me
lessons... and [bas] absolutely blown the lid off creating prediction
algorithms exceeding 90% plus probability in broad areas of physics,
socio-civics, economics and project management. Fate is beginning to resolve
into predictable cosmic logic sequences... This is heavy stuf. It can drive
someone who is in power shy and preaching all sweetness and light into a
real snit... So don't loose sleep over the $20,000 price being bantered
around. With the heavy Avatar traffic ahead, by the time Wizard is released
in February or March '89 that will be pocket jingle," now if that doesn't
sound like Hubbard."
Q: To the best of your knowledge how many people have completed the Avatar
course?
A: Harry Palmer, on many occasions, has said that there are about 1200 to
1500 Avatars. When I left November 7 there were 408, and anywhere from 75 to
100 Avatar Masters. It's most ex-Scientologists. Harry made some inroads
with some psychologists in Portland, but most of these people had previously
been involved in "New age", occult things.
Q: How similar is Avatar to the CofS in terms of attitudes and values?
A: Pretty similar. The attention on money was really a big deal. If somebody
didn't "get it" they would get a little special attention to see if they
could get it, then it was just kind of dropped. And recently I received in
the mail an anonymous warning: "Maybe the world should know what kind of
person you really are. Clean up the third party on H or they will".
Attatched were 4 or 5 pages of Xerox copies of overt write-ups from my
ethics folder. The police went to the Center to compare type between the
Center's typewriter and the blackmail note and were told that the ethics
folder and the typewriter were missing.
Q: Was the Elmira Center run the same as an Avatar center as it had been run
as a Scientology center?
A: We were still handing in our stats on Thursday at 2:00 up until June of
1987. It wasn't until Harry and Avra went to L.A. that the staff at home
stopped doing that. The pay was the same, too. We never had a chance to
deprogram from Scientology the way the rest of the field did. In Portland
when I was speaking my mind about the situation in Elmira, Harry asked me if
I had a withhold. He also asked me if I was doing drugs. He insinuated that
it was all my illusion -mind you, we had about 50 people in our Elmira
field - that these people were upset. A big flap followed us from L.A. to
Portland because we would leave town without completing people, I said we
should complete them and he said I was ''forwarding the enemy line". Also,
when something did not go the way he wanted, he always looked for a Who.
Q: Is he still withholding the money from the people in Elmira?
A: He is starting to give half of the money back. He considers that the
people in Elmira invested in something along with him called the OT Levels.
His words are "the ship sank". He didn't think that they had any right to
ask for their money back. He thought that they should "share in the loss."
I'd like to know why they don't share in the gain.
Q: Do they practice disconnetion in Avatar?
A: There was a woman in San Fransisco, an Avatar Master, that kept calling
me when she heard that I left staff. She said how mucht that she wanted to
help me and how much she cared. After Palmer was in San Fransisco I got a
carbon-copied letter from this woman which was a disconnection notice. She
wanted nothing to do with the people in Elmira because they are "draining."
Q: Do you have any criticism of the Avatar technology and material?
A: The only criticism I have is the way that the Masters Course is
administered. This may have changed, but at the last training I attended
their technique was to call people "dodo heads", ''bird brains'' and
''stupid'' and basically insult the person.
Q: Do you still believe that there is a be-all/end-all state called Avatar
that this rundown will produce?
A: Maybe for some people for a certain amount of time, but as far as forever
and ever, and the person never has to do another thing ever in his life,
that is misrepresented. If you're constantly growing, the same tool can't be
used forever. What you use as a child is not necessarily going to work as an
adult. Avatar is a useful tool for those who want it. The first session I
had was the ultimate key-out!
Q: Discreate means to as-is. What could be so special about another
technique to do that?
A: Well sometimes people do the "Emperor new clothes" thing, like "don't the
Emperor's new clothes look wonderful!"
Q: What was the last straw for you with the Avatar organization?
A: When I was in Portland and I was ready to resign, Harry and I, using the
Avatar materials, reached an understanding, and I felt wonderful and that I
was re-aligned with him. Then I saw the instructors treating another person
the way I was being treated, with intolerance and rudeness. I thought, hey,
I can discreate anything, but there is no way I can make certain things,
like their rudeness, disappear. I had a brand new perspective. It wasn't
all me. Harry does not believe in co-creation.
Q: What do you know about the origins of Avatar?
A: Harry has always done a lot of reading. He studied a lot of Hubbard when
he was in Scientology, and other things, like yoga. He was intensely
interested in Bashar. He bought all his tapes and videos - $900 worth. He
read that Ramtba book - all-white with "Ramtba" embossed on it.
Q: Do you have any regrets about missing out on the Wizard Course?
A: Fuck no! Can you print that? Fuck no!
Ronald Cools
> Seems to me like he was pretty kind to you. What/who made you flip out?
>
"Wizzy'',
Strange kind of job you have. Did you also have the last words Harry Palmer
E-mailed to me?
I am curious...
Ronald
www.AvatarScam.com
Ronald Cools
> woman scorned." I don't know why he protects her. She really betrayed
> him after he had treated her kindly. I guess it was her style. He still
> doesn't say anything bad about her, but I've heard some uncomplementary
> stories about her from others that were there. Apparently she once sent
> herself a threatening letter to get his attention and signed his name
> to it. Something really, really screwy, you know. She tried to get the
> police involved, but they already knew Harry for a long time and knew
> it wasn't his work. I think she also tried to sue Harry over something,
> but her lawyer talked her out of it. Her life was pretty fucked up. I
> think they talked after he moved to Florida and smoothed everything
> out. I don't know anything about the Ramtba stuff, but Harry does a
> funny imitation of Bashar.
>
''Wizzy'', I do not trustx unquotesz sourcesx from anonymouss people.
H, ehr, Ron.
EldonB123
don't think he even studied Scientology. >>
Bullshit. He was delivering bootleg Scientology AFTER he introducted the Avatar
Course welt into 1987, and declared himself president of the Church of
Scientology Elmira in1989, more than two years after Avatar was introduced.
Besides copying so many of L. Ron Hubbard's tactics. He's an LRH copycat. Let's
face it.
Get real. "If Ron could do it, I can do it too." -- HP.
Best, Eldon
EldonB123
him after he had treated her kindly. I guess it was her style. He still
doesn't say anything bad about her, but I've heard some uncomplementary
stories about her from others that were there. Apparently she once sent
herself a threatening letter to get his attention and signed his name
to it. Something really, really screwy, >>
Inside,
Isn't your nose pretty long already? It's growing at an unprecedented rate.
Best, Eldon