The Offer
Posted on February 23rd, 2006 by Reformed Pope into the Lawsuits & Logo's categoryI have been asked by the owner of this blog to try and negotiate a deal in regards to the LOGO.
I’ll try to make this short, so here’s the offer:
City Business Church is willing to withdraw their Trademark application for the logo IF City Bible Church is willing, in return, to allow them continued use of the logo on this site.
Please email response to tithingisgood@citybusinesschurch.org. This offer will be withdrawn in 48 hours.
RSS feed for posts
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Sounds like a good deal. If they agree, get it in writing with a “forever and ever” clause (whatever that is in legal-ese) just in case CBC decides to trademark it and then make another issue of this.
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:41 pm
That sounds fair to me. But I think they should take you guys out to starbucks for a round of espresso to discuss it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:39 pm
Winning the trademark would be much funnier cuz then you could frame it and put it on this blog and all of us little vermin could download it and sleep with smiles at night because our hero, JP the Great, has succeeded against all odds (of the lisp of course.)
Viva la Exers
February 23rd, 2006 at 2:43 pm
Don’t withdraw the application. They were the ones who decided to get lawyers involved. You gotta make ‘em pay. Make ‘em PAY.
You’re much MUCH too kind.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Advice to City Bible:
Consider that trademark holders are required to actively enforce their trademarks — which means that even if they aren’t likely to win, the trademark holder has an interest in suing you nevertheless. So you must not only conceive a scenario supported by legal precedent, you must also be prepared to bear the legal costs of defending your actions.
In other words: Use a different name.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Oops…I mean use a different logo.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Anonymous 4 Now:
What u said at 3:02 makes no sense. Could you elaborate please, in laymens terms of course
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:31 pm
He means that a trademark is basically pointless to have unless you actively enforce it.
In other words, it’s the reason why “starbucks” decided to sue a tiny little band of indians in the remote regions of northern canada.
Why? Because starbucks is a bunch of evil indian haters?
No, it’s because that group of indians called themselves “the starbucks”.. and Starbucks is OBLIGATED to enforce its mark against EVERYONE equally, otherwise their mark is lessened, and it’s possible someone could show precident that they no longer desire to protect their mark.
Isn’t that fun?
So next, if CBC (city BIBLE church, that is) wins the trademark, they’ll have to sue both Kinkos and MSNBC, because hey…. who ripped off who?!
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:35 pm
If the blog wins the trademark, they have an obligation to protect the trademark…and have an obligation to sue City Bible if they use it. It was a joke…in legal language.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Unless of course…. City Bible Church could be considered a “parody” of City Business Church.
In which case… there is a ton of legal precident (not to mention copyright law) that would protect them.
February 23rd, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Thank you, Anonymous 3:31 pm for understanding perfectly. Whoever wins has the obligation to protect the trademark by suing everyone else who tries to use it. Whether they win or not, it is like a dog peeing on his fire hydrant, he has to mark his territory…for appearance sake.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Unless of course they were only trademarking the logo so that it could not be trademarked by someone else who could then sue them.
In that case they wouldn’t need to sue anybody…
oh, and it’s completely unbiblical to sue people (I think they’d hate to be called City unBible Church).
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:35 pm
>> oh, and it’s completely unbiblical to sue people
>> (I think they’d hate to be called City unBible Church).
It’s also “unbiblical” for women to be in leadership or wear big jewelry.
;-)
Everything in context….
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:31 pm
You mean,
Everything as it is convenient…
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:44 pm
If they ‘trademark’ their logo, don’t they have to add the circle (R) or use a ‘TM’?
That’ll look real good on their reader board, letterhead, business cards, etc.:
“City Bible Church, TM*” (City Bible Church is a tradmark of City Bible Church) or “City Bible Church (R)” is a registered trademark of City Bible Church.
It poses some problems for them … can the newspaper print ‘City Bible Church’ without giving them credit for owning the logo / name?
That would make them look ridiculous.
February 23rd, 2006 at 7:36 pm
Anybody worth thier salt in the legal profession would know City Business Church doesn’t have a snowflake’s chance in hell pursuing this ridiculous game. City Bible Church would handily win and without a lot of effort. They could easily prove they have used the logo for months and therefore have ownership of origination, and the blog is teeming with evidence that it is purposefully stealing it.
If Justin hadn’t failed the bar exam about a dozen times, maybe he would know that.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
come on jericho it was only a couple times and one time he was really close
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:27 pm
City Bible Church declines your offer, and we’ll see you in court. We do not negotiate with terrorists.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:34 pm
Jericho March,
You’re missing the point of the whole website. READ THE FIRST LINE OF EVERY PAGE.
I’ll give you a hint.
Keyword = Parody
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Really, Anonymous? I’m missing the point of the whole website? Aw foshizzle. I thought the point was to grab you by the nostrils and shove your head back up your fat ass where it was five minutes ago. Hmm.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:50 pm
Jerecho meant to say “shove your head back up your fat donkey…” I mean, doesn’t everyone have a fat donkey they usually shove their head in? Somebody please tell me it isn’t just me…
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Anyone who talks about shoving someone up a fat ass must be one.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Confusion, you post another lame comment like that and I’m gonna shove YOU up a fat ass…
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:19 pm
Up yours?
What, can’t take a joke?
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Alright, you idiot, that’s it! I’m seriously gonna show up in the middle of the night and shove you right up a fat ass and I won’t pull you out until you post a comment that DOESN’T SUCK!
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Okay, so do we have a little gay lovers’ spat? Keep it clean, guys… keep it clean. This is a family show.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:34 pm
I’m touched…you’re funny. Ok, I may be lame but I don’t need to be shoved up a fat ass because I’m already a pain in the ass, right?
MY COMMENTS SUCK. I’m so proud…all I wanted to do was annoy someone because I was bored. Thank you for the entertainment.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:43 pm
yea, real anonymous, that was totally gay! I feel dirty and grossed out just for reading it.
February 23rd, 2006 at 10:57 pm
Why do you guys always have to be so quick to call people gay? I’m not gay! I think I’ve wasted enough time on this blog. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some figure skating to watch.
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:02 pm
I’m not gay, either…So, I’m a hair dresser, so what? And I love Barbra Streisand and Barry Manilow. And fancy sweaters…OH MY GOD!!! Identity crisis, identity crisis…
February 23rd, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Just kidding…Another lame post…I so suck. Sorry.
February 24th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Wow…no one stays on topic anymore.
February 25th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I wish you could take off the anonymous posting option.