legal Seventh-Day Adventist Church's UDRP on Adventist.com Denied

[Angela St. Julien]

Here’s a brief rundown on the case: General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, who was represented by Bryce J. Maynard of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC, holds registered trademark rights on the word Adventist and uses the domain name Adventist.org to conduct business, alleged that the respondent, who was represent by Eve J. Brown of Bricolage Law, LLC, had an identical name- Adventist.com, had no legitimate interest in the use of the domain, and registered the domain name in bad faith. As a result, they wanted the domain name removed from the current registrant- the respondent, and transferred to them. The case was reviewed by The Honorable Neil Anthony Brown QC, Jeffrey Samuels and Debrett G. Lyons (chair) as panelists.

For those of you who are unaware- there are three elements a complainant must prove in order to have a domain name transferred. They are:

• The domain name registered by the Respondent has to be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark the complainant has rights to
• The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in regards to the domain name
• The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

It was established straightaway that the Trademark element to this case was clearly proven by the complainant. Greg has said that he is working on a challenge to the mark because he believes Adventist to be too generic a word to be awarded a trademark, but the panel decided his intent did not preclude the fact that the complainant already had a legally registered trademark on the word with the USPTO regardless of what happens with the TTAB:

READ FULL ARTICLE

 

[ison]

I'm sure the UDRP panel have more reasons to deny the claim

The panel took both the respondent and the complainants argument into consideration and determined that the word adventist had a broader meaning beyond Seventh-day Adventists...

It's a noun that refers to specifically to one particular subject. I don't understand how this can be viewed as a generic word. Perhaps the lack of trademark plays a part.

That aside, the domain probably has only one end-user - the complainant.

 

[ecigs.net]

There are several different branches of the Adventist sect including the Branch Davidians. Which version of the cult should get the right to the word? They all claim to have been inspired by the divine. Adventist is no different from any religious word. Who has the right to the word Christian? Should it be the Catholics? Should it be the Nazarenes? Should it be the Church of Pakistan? They all claim to be of Christians. Anybody who gets a revelation and claims to see visions can start a church and claim the right to the name. That's what has been going on for thousands of years.

The owner should start his own church claiming that the digital domain Adventist.com is the one true Adventist church that has been coded in holy bytes and will remain eternally in the cloud until the sun glows red and melts the earth. R'amen.

 

[ison]

There are several different branches of the Adventist sect including the Branch Davidians. Which version of the cult should get the right to the word? They all claim to have been inspired by the divine. Adventist is no different from any religious word. Who has the right to the word Christian? Should it be the Catholics? Should it be the Nazarenes? Should it be the Church of Pakistan? They all claim to be of Christians. Anybody who gets a revelation and claims to see visions can start a church and claim the right to the name. That's what has been going on for thousands of years.

The owner should start his own church claiming that the digital domain Adventist.com is the one true Adventist church that has been coded in holy bytes and will remain eternally in the cloud until the sun glows red and melts the earth. R'amen.

For the sake of discussion, the judgement made no references to whether the Seventh-day Adventists is the rightful custodian of the domain (which they arguably are, IMO, since they were the first Millerites to use the term adventism and is by far the largest of the second advent proponents). Instead, based on the article, the

"panel states that issue of bad faith was a “close case.”

For what it's worth, the only difference between a cult and a religion is how long they've been around, IMO.


EDIT: The term 'adventist' appears to be trademarked for certain usages.(1, 2) It also appears that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists is quite litigious, and has gone after churches using their name.(1, 2).

 

[ecigs.net]

I agree. Cults, sects and religions are the same thing. That's kind of what I was trying to point out.

You seem like a serious person, so I don't want to waste (too much) of your time, but...

My church is called the 8th-day Adventists. The 8th Adventists believe that the Advent, the coming of the True Humans Beyond the Stars, will heal all the evils of Earth in Eight glorious days of technology and science. 8th-dayers, 8ies for short, have absolutely nothing to do with any other sect currently operating on this evil planet of ours. It is offensive to even be associated with those guys and gals. They can sue me if they want too, but I can't step foot inside a church. 8ies believe that the courtroom is the unholy place of blasphemous worship of the religion of Statehood. The only objects more sinful than courtrooms are official, photographic portraits of political persons and official government documents and symbols such as coins, paper money bills, postage stamps, passports and miniature copies of the constitution. All of these objects must be burnt when encountered.

Just joking. You are probably right. Scientology has done wonders in the courtroom. I'm sure the Adventists are no different in protecting their interests. These people play rough when you try to take some of their power away.

Peace.

 

[ison]

I agree. Cults, sects and religions are the same thing. That's kind of what I was trying to point out.

You seem like a serious person, so I don't want to waste (too much) of your time, but...

My church is called the 8th-day Adventists. The 8th Adventists believe that the Advent, the coming of the True Humans Beyond the Stars, will heal all the evils of Earth in Eight glorious days of technology and science. 8th-dayers, 8ies for short, have absolutely nothing to do with any other sect currently operating on this evil planet of ours. It is offensive to even be associated with those guys and gals. They can sue me if they want too, but I can't step foot inside a church. 8ies believe that the courtroom is the unholy place of blasphemous worship of the religion of Statehood. The only objects more sinful than courtrooms are official, photographic portraits of political persons and official government documents and symbols such as coins, paper money bills, postage stamps, passports and miniature copies of the constitution. All of these objects must be burnt when encountered.

Just joking. You are probably right. Scientology has done wonders in the courtroom. I'm sure the Adventists are no different in protecting their interests. These people play rough when you try to take some of their power away.

Peace.

Sounds awesome. Will the deeds to my house be sufficient to become an 8ies?

Speaking of Scientology, I think they're the only 'religious' organization to successfully deflect an IRS audit. After 2,400 Scientologists filed individual lawsuits against the IRS, the agency agreed to step back. Of course, Operation Snow White probably already removed most of the incriminating evidence against the church of Scientology.

 

[ecigs.net]

Your house deed and your domain portfolio would do for a little while. How long depends on how many members you bring to the fold. I hear door to door converting works rather well.

I think there is a documentary or book that talks about that called, Going Clear, that talks about the IRS case. I haven't actually looked into it first hand, but Sam Harris interviewed the writer in one of his Waking Up podcast episodes. It is frightening that the IRS backed down. The power the group must have to stop the IRS.

Apropos power. I find it astonishing and wonderful that the UDRP did not side with the religious group. I would have bet money on the case going the other way (even though I know nothing of the legalities of such things). I guess they thought it was an open and shut case and didn't bother to harass anyone. Still, I doubt that this is going to be the end of it. I'm sure they are plotting on their next move to get the domain right now.