No Longer the "Mormon" Church - Deceptive Ads Instead

[_JP]

[ You've constructed a narrative here that 95% of church members simply don't identify with.
(and on brand).

Since over 50% of Mormons are inactive, how can it be asserted that 95% of Mormons don't identify with something?

I was referring to 95% of the "rank and file" and "faithful church members."

[Guest]

You indicate that you are proud of the LDS Church leadership for trying to shed a centuries old brand

Do I? Where exactly do I do that?

You termed such actions by LDS Church leaders as "a pretty genius move and on brand". One would normally take such words as an expression of admiration and pride.

[_Lemmie]

I believe the church believes it has enough marketing and SEO power, combined with the fact that "The Church of Jesus Christ" is so fractured and not truly owned by one entity, that it believes it can co-opt the term.

And I think they're probably right, and if they are, it's actually a pretty genius move (and on brand).

Ouch. So, a marketing maneuver? I've argued several times that the lds church has abysmal PR representation so if you are arguing that it's a genius move for the lds church to steal a copyright, I guess that fits right in.

[_DrW]

I believe the church believes it has enough marketing and SEO power, combined with the fact that "The Church of Jesus Christ" is so fractured and not truly owned by one entity, that it believes it can co-opt the term.

And I think they're probably right, and if they are, it's actually a pretty genius move (and on brand).

Ouch. So, a marketing maneuver? I've argued several times that the lds church has abysmal PR representation so if you are arguing that it's a genius move for the lds church to steal a copyright, I guess that fits right in.

Copyright infringement is most often a civil matter, but can rise to the level of a felony. If a case ends up in court, there is likely to be one of three findings: the infringement is normally determined to be “innocent”, “ordinary”, or “willful”. JP's description of the infringement by the LDS Church sure sounds willful to me.

Any attorneys on the board care to comment?

[_JP]

You termed such actions by LDS Church leaders as "a pretty genius move and on brand". One would normally take such words as an expression of admiration and pride.

Only someone who doesn't understand the words admiration, pride and genius.

[_JP]

so if you are arguing that it's a genius move for the LDS church to steal a copyright, I guess that fits right in.

Tell me, since it seems so cut-and-dry to you...who precisely "owns" the CoJC registered trademark?

(You realize a trademark is what we're talking about here, not a copyright...they're two different things)

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Tell me, since it seems so cut-and-dry to you...who precisely "owns" the CoJC registered trademark?

(You realize a trademark is what we're talking about here, not a copyright...they're two different things)

JP,

Are you talking about this registered trademark?



eta:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield ... hlw9og.2.2

- Doc

[_JP]

Are you talking about this registered trademark?
- Doc

Who owns it? Is it still active? Is it a preferred trademark or a supplemental trademark?

(your link is dead because you're trying to link to a live search session)

[_DrW]

so if you are arguing that it's a genius move for the LDS church to steal a copyright, I guess that fits right in.

Tell me, since it seems so cut-and-dry to you...who precisely "owns" the CoJC registered trademark?

(You realize a trademark is what we're talking about here, not a copyright...they're two different things)

Now you are splitting hairs.

Patents, trademarks and copyrights are all means of protecting different types of intellectual property. In the US, all three are administered by the USPTO. Violation of each is termed an infringement. Copyrights may be registered or unregistered.

The CoJCoLDS uses the IRI copyright shown below to protect what it claims to be its document form (text and graphic works) intellectual property, including the name of of the Church (which name it may or may not also have word or design trademarked).

© 2019 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved


While we have plenty of attorneys on the message board, this is not a forum concerned with the fine points of law.

[_JP]

While we have plenty of attorneys on the message board, this is not a forum concerned with the fine points of law.

Ah, so you're not interested in the facts of law, just whatever makes the best argument for your audience? Sounds familiar...

If we're talking about whether the CoJCoLDS can realistically change its "name" in the context of the discussion we're having, it's useful to talk about the specifics of intellectual property.

In my short search, I could only find one active (live) registered trademark for the name "Church of Jesus Christ." It belongs to what I can only assume is a small congregation in Pennsylvania. And, at that, it is on the supplemental register, meaning that the PTO doesn't consider it to be unique enough as it pertains to that entity to warrant a principal trademark. Marks on the supplemental register are much less likely to hold up in court should a lawsuit come about. My guess is that Kirton & McConkie could probably squash that little Pennsylvania church like a cockroach if it ever came down to it. I'd be willing to bet they've already done all the work I'm talking about, and feel fully confident they're fine on the IP front moving forward using "Church of Jesus Christ" in whatever context they want to.

In fact, the use of "Church of Jesus Christ" in the ways the church is currently using it might be a first step in trying to acquire the principal trademark. In order to register a trademark, you must demonstrate the use of the mark in a live setting (website, billboards, signage). So this could be the church beginning that process.

Either way from what I can tell off the bat, all this blowing smoke about the church infringing on someone's trademark is, well, just that. Blowing smoke.