Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh, I totally get the deception part, Shades. Why is MAD talking about trademark registration then?

[_Dr. Shades]

Oh, I totally get the deception part, Shades. Why is MAD talking about trademark registration then?

I'm quite sure they're just misspeaking. Since it's nearly unthinkable to me that the Tanners wouldn't have registered "Utah Lighthouse Ministry" as a trademark, the MA&Dites most likely mean domain name registration, not trademark registration.

[_Jersey Girl]

Shades,

Now I get it. So, if Tanners didn't have a domain registration....and Wyatt did...that's why Wyatt won the case. That makes sense.

Jersey Girl

[_Sethbag]

Sorry if I read more into your question than you intended. To answer your question more pointedly: no, I don't think she could win on appeal, whatever level of preparation her lawyers achieved.

Is it because the case hinges on her failure to secure the trademark?

Jersey Girl

No. The cybersquatting claim would fail because it would be impossible to demonstrate that Allan Wyatt registered the domainnames in a bad faith effort to profit by selling them to the UTLM. A lack of offers by Wyatt to sell was bad enough, but the coup de grace is that he actually offered them up for free. The cybersquatting law requires an attempt to profit from the domainnames.

The claim of unauthorized use fails because there are provisions for "fair use" of the mark, and the circumstances of this use match one of those, ie: parody.

The dilution claims fail because Tanner's lawyers failed utterly to prove that the use of the mark actually confused anyone.

[_Sethbag]

Oh, I totally get the deception part, Shades. Why is MAD talking about trademark registration then?

I'm quite sure they're just misspeaking. Since it's nearly unthinkable to me that the Tanners wouldn't have registered "Utah Lighthouse Ministry" as a trademark, the MA&Dites most likely mean domain name registration, not trademark registration.

They were talking about trademark registration.

The problem here is that people mistakenly believe that a trademark has to be registered to be protectable. It doesn't. There's such a thing as a common-law trademark, which can be established in court by demonstrating that it's been used commercially, that it's distinctive, associated by the general public with your goods and services, isn't generic, and some other things. If you can show that in court, you've got a protected trademark, whether it was registered or not. Having it be registered just widens the scope of its protection (ie: national protection rather than just limited to the area you do business in) and establishes the fact of a protectable trademark without having to prove that it meets the criteria.

The fact that the trademark wasn't registered is ultimately not critical in this case, because Wyatt's use was deemed "fair use" as parody, and no bad faith attempt to profit from the domain names could be shown (in fact he transferred them over to the Tanners for free). With a successful "fair use" defense and a lack of demonstrated bad faith in terms of the requirements of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, there's simply no way for the Tanners to win, even if the trademark had been registered before Wyatt registered the domain names.

Look, I don't believe the church is true or anything. We all know Wyatt was "sticking it" to UTLM, just like UTLM "sticks it" to the church with www.bookofmormon.com. However, I believe, as a non-lawyer who is nevertheless very interested in the law, that Wyatt's defense of "fair use" as parody was pretty strong, and I think it's obvious that no claim of bad faith under the ACPA could possibly have been proven. The fact is, Sandra Tanner really shouldn't have pursued this. Wyatt offered to hand over the domains immediately, and she should have accepted that and dropped the whole matter. Instead, she overplayed her hand, and got smacked down for it. This doesn't mean the LDS church is true or anything, it just means Sandra Tanner made a poor choice in pursuing this lawsuit all the way to its bitter end. At least, this should be the end of it. If she does appeal it, it'll be even dumber than it already is.

Come on, people, the legal system of our nation and the state of Utah shouldn't be used to try to "stick it" to the Church, or any of its minions, official or self-appointed. That's not what it's there for. Let's keep it real, shall we?

[_Infymus]

But I doubt it would be nearly as dramatic as Lance’s triumphant declaration “Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner.” Sounds like someone is polishing his own “trophy,” especially since he was the attorney involved.

One of the actual attorneys from the case is posting how he defeated the UTLM? Wow.

I need to call Sandra and wish her well. She has been through enough this year already.

And this gem:

It is amazing the lengths the antis will go to in hiding information.

Not surprising to me. Of course Mormons are justified in hiding information from members and investigators by using the "Milk Before Meat" rule when the truth is that the "Meat" is always hidden. Just look at josephsmith.net - the LDS Corporation's new site. Not a single mention of any of Joseph's polygamous wives, his arrest records and so forth.

Over on the MAD boards, they don't "hide" information, they simply censor and ban anyone who is asking for or talks about "Meat".

[_Dr. Shades]

Let me see if I have this straight:

The thread title over there is "Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner." Now, didn't they just get done saying that FAIR had nothing to do with Wyatt's stupid antics? So was FAIR involved merely as an innocent co-defendant in the case, or were they actually involved with the domain name idiocy after all?

[_Mister Scratch]

Let me see if I have this straight:

The thread title over there is "Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner." Now, didn't they just get done saying that FAIR had nothing to do with Wyatt's stupid antics? So was FAIR involved merely as an innocent co-defendant in the case, or were they actually involved with the domain name idiocy after all?

There is a fairly (pun intended) lengthy history over there of trying to avoid accountability and to deny "affiliation." For instance, shortly after I began posting to my blog, I received a letter from John Lynch, in which he denied---at length, and quite strenuously---that FAIR was in no way "affiliated" with the LDS Church. I did not buy his explanation at all.

Another thing which is extremely interesting to me is the dodgy reply that Allen "The Joker" Wyatt gave to kantgomo when asked about the "money trail" for all these domain purchases. I guess Wyatt must know that his answer would look embarrassing either way: if he is shelling out, then it makes him look like an obsessive zealot, and if the Church is footing the bill.... Well, then, we know what that means....

I wonder: has anybody mentioned that mysterious "The Church Monitors 1,500 Anti-Mormon Websites" posting to that BYU page a little while back? After all, didn't we decide in the end that Wyatt was the most likely candidate for having posted that juicy tidbit?

[_Sethbag]

Let me see if I have this straight:

The thread title over there is "Wyatt & Fair Defeat Utlm And Sandra Tanner." Now, didn't they just get done saying that FAIR had nothing to do with Wyatt's stupid antics? So was FAIR involved merely as an innocent co-defendant in the case, or were they actually involved with the domain name idiocy after all?

Sandra Tanner tried to involve FAIR in her claim, so FAIR was a defendant in the case. Since the defendants won, it's technically correct that Wyatt and FAIR defeated Sandra Tanner in this lawsuit. The fact of their being named as defendants by Sandra Tanner does not establish the fact of their having actually been involved in the website thing. In fact, in his ruling, the judge specifically killed the connection to FAIR that served as the basis of their being named defendants. I think it's pretty clear that this was Wyatt's doing. And yes, within the context of this lawsuit, Wyatt and his attorney (Confidential Informant) and FAIR and their attorney (forget the name) did in fact defeat Tanner and UTLM.

The fact is, Confidential Informant did a good job representing his client, and Tanner's attorney didn't do a good job representing Tanner, and they got spanked. This doesn't mean if Tanner had been better represented they would have won. If they'd had better representation they might have succeeded in demonstrating the protectability of their unregistered mark, but they still probably couldn't have overcome the fair use defense regarding the Lanham Act claims, and proven bad faith in terms of the ACPA claims, nor proven confusion in the dilution claims. As I've said in previous posts, Sandra Tanner didn't really have a very good legal case here, and she should have let the matter drop ages ago, and not pursued it all the way to a trial and the eventual smackdown of her claims by the judge.

The court system isn't the place to "stick it" to the LDS Church or its supporters. There's no need for anyone on this board who beliefs the LDS church isn't true to also need for the Tanner lawsuit to succeed in court. They're entirely unrelated concepts, or should be. I think a lot of the antis and critics aren't seeing this issue clearly and objectively, and it's making them look bad to the other side. All the lawyers, and others on the other side who took great interest in this case, on FAIR, are just crowing right now about the dumb things a lot of critics are saying about this case in their need to stick it to the church and FAIR. This lawsuit isn't anything the critics need to hang their hat on.

[_dartagnan]

Lance Starr responds to this thread:

Apparently, I have offended Kevin Graham/dartagnan over on the FOB board. Not sure exactly what I did except proclaim that Wyatt had soundly defeated Sandra Tanner in his law suit. I'm not sure how that is offensive.

Please. Someone tell me where I expressed offense at anything Lance did or said. Juliann said critics will be bragging about this event in some way. I simply said I doubt they would be bragging the way Lance did with his subject header.

The Tanner bring something like 6 causes of action and each and every one of them was summarily dismissed with prejudice as have no sound basis in fact or law.

Please. Illustrate where I ever said the Tanners should have won. Only on one point did I think they could have made a case; the question which asks whether Allen “profited” from this in any way. Allen can claim it was simply an exercise in comic relief, a parody. But we all know the real purpose here. He was trying to profit the same way FAIR tries to profit. Not by monetary gain, but by either refuting anti-Mormon arguments, or, as in this case, divert people away from them.

The Tanners probably could have cited Allen’s own words from two years ago when he was asked on the FAIR forum, his reasons for hijacking numerous “save Grant Palmer” related domain names. Allen said nothing about parody as his motive. Allen essentially said his intentions were to thwart their mission. So with this as Allen’s established history, with the Tanner incident he tells the court he was just trying to get a giggle out of it and nothing more.

In fact, he and others seem to think me a great moron.

I’d love for Lance to demonstrate where I have ever said or implied such a thing, as I don’t believe this at all.

As point of clarification, I am/was indeed the lead attorney for Mr. Wyatt on the case. And if I am as big a bufoon as I appear to be made out to be on the FOB, then how big a moron was the Tanner's attorney, Mr. Paul Ostereich, to lose so convincingly? It's especiallly interesting when you consider that I began work on this case prior to even receiving my bar card (I had passed, just didn't have the card) and I had no particular expertise in Trademark law. Mr. Ostereich, on the other had, works for a highly regard Intellectual Property firm in Salt Lake and had any and every resource at his disposal.

I suspect Lance realizes that nobody is likely to run to the forum to check out what the hell he is talking about, and is simply taking advantage of this opportunity to swank even further. But considering the fact that they maintain the Tanners had ZERO chance of winning anyway, how is winning a sure thing something to brag about?