From: Andreas Heldal-Lund - www.xenu.net Subject: Re: OP. CLAMBAKE: Letter from cult lawer on NOTS34 and Metatags Date: 07 Jan 2000 00:00:00 GMT Message-ID: References: Organization: Operation Clambake Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology,misc.legal These are some of my comments to the letter from the cult lawyer to my US ISP: >Our firm represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC") in >intellectual property matters. We often work with Moxon & Kobrin in >connection with intellectual property issues. Is Helena and Ava busy these days? I wonder with what... >Ava Paquette has given me a copy of your letter dated November 22, >1999, which I have reviewed. We would like to express our >appreciation for your client's termination of the copyright >infringement on this site. At the same time, we must protest its Don't celebrate too early, nothing is moved, I've just changed some links and removed copies that was surplus anyway. >failure to terminate the trademark infringement in the metatags. In You are lying, my use of trademarks in metatags does not infringe any trademark. If it truly did you would have sued me and thousands of others long time ago. >addition, our client has informed us that there is now another >copyright infringement on the site. We are therefore writing to you >concerning the new copyright infringement and the metatags. Funny, this has been there a long time and your stupid cult has even complained about it before! Now it suddenly is new? How incompetent are the goons at the OSA Web Watch Dep? >Mr. Lund has placed one of RTC's copyrighted works known as My name is Heldal-Lund. If you can't even get that right, how can I trust your claims about the law? >"NOTs 34," on his web page on his Sage Network website. This work is True, I got two quotes from the massive NOTs, both of which are analysis of section 34. If it is your confused opinion that such an extract of NOTs is not within the right of fair use then I suggest very strongly that you immediately sue me. Preferably here in Norway since that is where these analysis are physically stored. Put up or shut up! >registered with the United States Copyright Office under >registration numbers: TKu 257 326 and 257 527. Copies of these >registrations are enclosed. Irrelevant, it's a fair use quote from the NOTs. >This work is located under the following URL: > >http://www.xxxx.net/archive/events/9805henson-case/nots34_anal.html#later Look at your stupid cult, they don't even dare to write the correct URL. It's XENU (!!!) and not XXXX. Why are almost all the Scientologists I mean so incredible incompetent? >Mr. Lund has reproduced this copyrighted work on Sage's website >verbatim, with gratuitous remarks placed here and there, which, as Have you even read it? I don't think so. This is called an analysis (see the header?). >you know, does not bring Mr. Lund within the protection of the fair IT'S HELDAL-LUND!! >use doctrine. As you may also know, our client has obtained numerous >permanent injunctions regarding this very work in the United States >and internationally, in connection with similar uses. The fair use >arguments made in those cases were rejected. If that was the case and you are so sure, then it should be a safe case to go to court with. Think of the great feeling of victory and the publicity! ;-) >Similar results have been reached in Europe. On September 14, 1998, >a Swedish court enjoined a defendant who engaged in similar >infringements, in addition to finding that his actions in placing This is a lie, AFAIK Zenon never claimed what he did with the NOTs was within the fair use doctrine. >Mr. Lund's actions in this regard similarly violate United States IT'S HELDAL-LUND! >copyright law. We therefore request that this work be removed >immediately. Request whatever you want, the files will stay on-line here in Norway until a Norwegian court tells me I can't. Period. >We now turn to the matter of the metatags. There are numerous cases >that clearly support RTC's position that Mr. Lund's unauthorized use Read my lips: Heldal-Lund >of RTC's trademarks in the metatags on his website is a violation of >RTC's trademark rights. Bullshit. >Mr. Heldal-Lund argues that his metatag use is not infringement Finally, you got my name right!!! 8-) >solely because it is critical rather than commercial. This argument >has been refuted in a number of domain name decisions, which apply >equally to the metatag issue. The principal cases of this kind are >Jews For Jesus v. Brodsky, 993 F. Stipp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998) and >Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 42 U.S.P.Q. >2d 1430. These decisions hold that use of a mark to create a false >initial impression as to the sponsorship of a site constitutes >trademark infringement. I _DON'T_ create a false initial impression! I have a site that mention Scientology, Hubbard and Dianetics - so the metatags are Scientology, Hubbard and Dianetics. The paradox is that I have many links to official Scientology sites to rule out any misunderstanding and I urge my visitors to also visit these sites. But what did the cult recently do? They blocked their own sites if people tried to surf to their site from Operation Clambake!!! If that is a strategic measure to make it look more like I try to "create a false impression" then I doubt you guys will have a good day in court. >More specifically, in Jews for Jesus, which is directly on point, >the defendant registered a domain name similar to that of the Domain names and meta tags is _NOT_ the same. So you argument is already flawed. >religious organization, Jews for Jesus, for the purpose of diverting >Internet users away from the religious organization and to his site I can prove that my intent is not, and has never been, to divert Internet users. I got hundreds of examples that will show that all my actions is in contradiction to everything you claim here. Sue me and I'll show you! >where he pointed them to material which was anti-Jews for Jesus, >warning them away from the religion. The court concluded that >defendant's use of the trademark for this purpose violated the >Lanham Act. One of the arguments made by the infringer was that use >of the trademark constituted privileged non-commercial speech >because "it is meant to call attention to issues of public >importance." The Jews for Jesus court emphatically rejected this >argument because: (1) the defendant created a "bogus" Jews for Jesus >site intended to intercept "the audience sought by the Plaintiff Where did I create a bogus Scientology site??? Have you even looked at my page? >Organization"; (2) he used the mark to create the false impression >that the site was sponsored by the Plaintiff Organization; and (3) I have never done anything even close to this. Do you want me to sue you for false accusations? >In Planned Parenthood, a case followed by the Jews for Jesus court, >the defendant engaged in similar conduct. Planned Parenthood was the >service mark of a non-profit organization who operated a website >entitled "ppfa.org." The defendant, an outspoken critic and opponent >of the plaintiff, set up a website entitled "planned parenthood. >com". In finding that the defendant's conduct violated the Lanham >Act, the court stated that: > > defendant's use of plaintiffs mark is likely to prevent > some Internet users from reaching plaintiffs own > Internet website. Prospective users of plaintiff's But I help people find official Scientology sites!!! How can this case then compare to my situation? > services who mistakenly access defendant's website may > fail to continue to search for plaintiff's own home > page, due to anger, frustration, or the belief that > plaintiffs home page does not exist. An impression you would have to be very dim if you got after visiting Operation Clambake. >There have been a number of cases following these holdings. In >Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company v. Taylor, 21 F.Supp.2d But you are already lost in something you obviously do not understand. Your references to other lawsuits is totally silly as long as you haven't done your homework better. >1003 (D.Minn. 1998), the court enjoined the defendant from using >plaintiff's trademark "Post-it" as a registered Internet domain, >finding that: I'm not using any trademarks as registered Internet domains. Please take some night classes in computing and Internet or something. >Other cases reaching similar results are Panavision International, >L.P. v. Toeppen, 141 F.3d 1316 (9th Cir. 1998); and SNA, Inc. v. >Array, 1999 WL 359786 (E.D.Pa. 1999) (court found defendant's use of >plaintiff's trademark in a website address > > "highly likely to cause confusion". Someone looking for > official information about the [plaintiff] will likely > go to the address, either by guessing it and typing it > in directly or by using a search engine and choosing Haha, you are saying that people might type in "xenu.net" believing they would get an official Scientology site? Who are the cause for the name Xenu being known publicly, the Scientologists or the critics? > this site from those listed because it sounds the most > official. Internet users expect that a site with ... a My site says at the top: "The Fight Against Scientology on the Net" Does that sound like an official Scientology site? How dumb are the people Scientology aim to get as members? > trademark is somehow related to the owner of the > trademark. ") > >Please note that RTC has not asked that the site be disabled on the >basis of the metatags. It has asked only that the metatags be Liar!! In the previous attack against Operation Clambake RTC's lawyer (Ava M. Paquette at Moxon & Kobrin) requested that Operation Clambake, including it's main index page, was either removed or disabled in a letter to my ISP dated August 23 1999: http://www.xenu.net/archive/events/199911-metatags/page8.gif >removed. We recognize that Mr. Lund is entitled to his opinions and Now you got sloppy again, what did I tell you my last name was? >his right to express them, as long as he violates no laws while >doing so. However, the case law is clear that his use of RTC's >registered trademarks in his metatags on an anti-Scientology website We got courts here in Norway to decide if the law of the land is broken. Take me before it or shut up! >creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of >his site by RTC in violation of the Lanham Trademark Act and state >dilution laws, My site "creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship"??? Get out of here!!! >To confirm what Ms. Paquette has informed you, the terms >"Scientology", "L. Ron Hubbard", and "Dianetics" used by Mr. Lund >are trademarks owned by our client, RTC, which are registered And then you got an excuse to send him another copy of all these nice registration sheets. I bet you invoice RTC per page you send out! When it reached me it was 54 pages. >Mr. Lund is not authorized by RTC to use these trademarks in any HELDAL-LUND!!!!! >In the authorized Scientology website at "www.scientology.org," you >will see that, like the official Jews for Jesus website in the Jews >for Jesus case, this website is used to sell books by Mr. Hubbard, >the founder of the Scientology religion, and to offer courses, >services and information. Mr. Lund, like the defendant in the Jews >for Jesus, has numerous links to anti-Scientology sites on his Sage >Networks web page. It is clear that he is misusing our client's >trademarks precisely as the defendants misused those marks set >forth in the cases cited above, i.e., to divert persons from >reaching the official Scientology website. The comparison is ridiculous. >Accordingly, in light of clear case law showing that Mr. Lund's >use of these trademarks violates our client's rights, we ask that >you require him to delete our client's marks from his metatags. Dream on. This is such an important issue that we can _NOT_ allow this to be decided between the claimed offended part and the lawyers representing my ISP. Take me to court if you dare. >We also note that RTC has informed us that it has had thorough >searches of this website done in the past, and this is the first >time it has found the copyrighted NOTs work on the Sage Network Then RTC are liars! The page about the Henson case has been there since May 17 1998. RTC Norwegian lawyers sent my lawyer a complaint about the NOTs 34 in November 1998. Her is their letter: http://www.xenu.net/news/19981102-hh1.gif http://www.xenu.net/news/19981102-hh2.gif And here are some translations from the reply my layer sent them: http://www.xenu.net/news/19981108-ars.txt >website. Mr. Lund is obviously playing games by engaging in seriatim Either you are a liar, or your client is lying to you. These are not new files on my system and RTC knows this very well. Want me to produce witnesses to confirm they have seen this on my site for a long time? Maybe I can even get hold of people with dated backups? Wouldn't that be pretty cool to show the judge? >infringements that will simply continue unabated. We therefore ask >that you investigate this point and take action to terminate his >account to prevent this situation from continuing and causing >unending trouble. First you say you don't want to close me down and I should be allowed to criticize your client, and then you ask my ISP to cancel my account? You aren't very hard to expose... Stupid cult. Best wishes, SP4 & Adm. TOXE CXI Andreas Heldal-Lund, Normannsgaten 9, N-4013 Stavanger, Norway Pho: +47 88 00 66 66 Fax: 90 32 35 46 E-mail: heldal@online.no home.sol.no/~spirous www.xenu.net www.hedning.no/hedning --------------------------------------------------------------- "Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph." - Haile Selassie ---------------------------------------------------------------