Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation v. World Church
Citation | 297 F.3d 662 |
Decision Date | 25 July 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 02-1381.,02-1381. |
Parties | TE-TA-MA TRUTH FOUNDATION — FAMILY OF URI, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WORLD CHURCH OF THE CREATOR, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit |
Paul R. Steadman (argued), Kirkland & Ellis, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Todd M. Reardon (argued), A Citizen's Law Office, Charleston, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
BEFORE: COFFEY, EASTERBROOK, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
The "Church of the Creator" and the "World Church of the Creator" have irreconcilable creeds. The Church of the Creator (the operating name of TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation — Family of URI, Inc.) believes in universal love and respect. Its Sacred Mandate reads:
CHURCH OF THE CREATOR®
Supports the Family Unification of Mankind In All Aspects Of The Whole.
We of Like Mind Join Harmoniously In Oneness, Knowing That There Is Only One Creator-Source.
The Many In One Dedicate Our Physical Embodiments To The God Expression In Form, Bringing Forth By Example To This Planet Earth Love, Light and Peace.
DIVINE RIGHT ORDER®
In All Thoughts — All Things, Our Universe Automatically Aligns Into Manifestation of Heaven On Earth.
Through The Priesthood of Melchizedek We Are One In The Body Of Jesus Christ.
As Above So Below.
The Church's web site
What has led to this litigation between the two organizations is the little® symbol attached to Church of the Creator. (To promote clarity, from now on we refer to the Church of the Creator as "the Foundation" and the World Church of the Creator as "the World Church.") Klassen founded and named his group in 1973, while the Foundation did not begin using "Church of the Creator" until 1982. But the Foundation was first to take advantage of the federal trademark-registration system, seeking protection in 1987 for its name and symbol (a radiant dove centered on a six-pointed star with a multi-colored background):
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) granted the Foundation's application in 1988, though it required the Foundation to disclaim any right to the word "church." See Trademark Registration No. 1,496,724. Five years passed, during which Klassen's group did not protest this registration. The PTO then accepted and filed a declaration that the mark had become incontestable under 15 U.S.C. § 1065 — which means that it may be enforced, without proof of secondary meaning, even if it is a descriptive name for the qualities or characteristics of a good or service. See Park `N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189, 105 S.Ct. 658, 83 L.Ed.2d 582 (1985). When the Foundation began to receive protests about its supposedly racist creed — complaints demonstrating confusion between the two groups — it set out to enforce its incontestable mark by seeking an injunction against the World Church's use of what is obviously a confusingly similar name. The groups' symbology differs, as the World Church's banner shows:
NOTE: OPINION CONTAINING TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE
But the Foundation's mark includes the name as well as the graphic presentation.
Although an incontestable mark may be enforced even if it is descriptive, it is subject to cancellation if it is or becomes generic. Section 1065, which sets out the rules for incontestable marks, begins: "Except on a ground for which application to cancel may be filed at any time under paragraphs (3) and (5) of section 1064 of this title", and § 1064(3) permits cancellation "[a]t any time if the registered mark becomes the generic name for the goods or services, or a portion thereof, for which it is registered." Thus as the Court recognized in Park `N Fly an incontestable mark does not confer any rights to a phrase that was generic at the outset or has become so through use. "A generic term is one that refers to the genus of which the particular product is a species." 469 U.S. at 194, 105 S.Ct. 658. The World Church's defense in this suit is that "Church of the Creator" is generic: that it names the genus of all monotheistic religions, of which particular creeds such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (and all their many subdivisions) are the species. The Foundation replied with two procedural points: first, that although generic status allows cancellation of a mark by the PTO under § 1064, it does not afford a defense while the mark remains uncancelled; second, that incontestable status provides at least a powerful presumption that the mark is non-generic, a presumption that can be overcome only by strong evidence of actual usage. The district judge brushed aside both of these arguments and, relying exclusively on dictionary definitions of the word "creator," entered summary judgment for the World Church. TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation — Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of the Creator, 2002 WL 126103, 2002 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 1478 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 31, 2002).
On appeal the Foundation repeats its contention that the PTO, rather than a court, is the proper forum for any contention that an incontestable mark is generic. This contention, which relies principally on 15 U.S.C. § 1115(b) (), finds some support in the language of Sovereign Order of St. John of Jerusalem, Inc. v. Grady, 119 F.3d 1236, 1240 (6th Cir.1997), but not in the holding of that or any other circuit — and it is untenable. Even if a mark must be canceled before enforcement may be denied, trademark law does not reserve the cancellation power to the PTO. A court may cancel a mark itself or order the agency to do so. 15 U.S.C. § 1119. So even if the sequence must be generic status to cancellation to nonenforcement, a court can handle all of the stages. This means that the generic nature of a mark may be a defense in litigation. And if a court may order a mark canceled, an incontestable registration is more like a bursting-bubble presumption of non-generic-ness than like the sort of indomitable presumption that the Foundation seeks. Like the district court then, we proceed to ask whether "Church of the Creator" is generic.
Unlike the district court, we conclude that this phrase is descriptive rather than generic. Appellate review of a summary-judgment decision is plenary. Both sides moved for summary judgment, so each was required to introduce evidence to show that a material issue of disputed fact remained...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nat. Nonwovens v. Consumer Products Enterprises
...the presumption), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 907, 123 S.Ct. 1486, 155 L.Ed.2d 227 (2003); TE-TA-MA Truth Found.-Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of Creator, 297 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir.2002) ("[A]n incontestable registration is more like a bursting-bubble presumption of non-generic-ness than ......
-
Purepecha Enters., Inc. v. El Matador Spices & Dry Chiles
...U.S.C. § 1119, federal courts may cancel registration of a trademark when warranted. See TE-TA-MA Truth Foundation-Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of Creator, 297 F.3d 662, 665-66 (7th Cir. 2002) ("Trademark law does not reserve the cancellation powerto the PTO"); 5 J. McCarthy, McCarth......
-
Vonrosenberg v. Lawrence, Civil Action No. 2:13-587-RMG
...differentiates a specific denominational organization offering religious services. See TE-TA-MA Truth Found.--Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of Creator , 297 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir. 2002) ("A mark is ‘generic’ when it has become the name of a product (e.g., ‘sandwich’ for meat between ......
-
Gen. Conference Corp. Of Seventh-day Adventists v. Mcgill
...and they could not “claim a monopoly of teaching this form of religious faith”); cf. TE-TA-MA Truth Found.-Family of URI, Inc. v. World Church of the Creator, 297 F.3d 662, 666 (7th Cir.2002) ( “Church of the Creator” describes a Christian denomination, not a religion, and is not generic); ......
-
What Is Caesar's, What Is God's: Fundamental Public Policy For Churches.
...Church of Scientology of Cal., 823 F.2d at 1315. (51.) See Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation-Family of Uri, Inc. v. World Church of the Creator, 297 F.3d 662, 663-64 (7th Cir. 2002) (citing Church of the Creator v. Comm'r, 707 F.2d 491 (11th Cir. (52.) Church of the Creator, 707 F.2d at 492-93. (53......
-
Discriminaton on the Basis of Religion Is Prohibited! but What Is Religion
...sued by the Church of the Creator in a trademark infringement action. Te-Ta-Ma Truth Foundation v. World Church of the Creator, 297 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2002). It now calls itself The Creativity Movement. Available at http//www.creativitymovement.net. For a history of the "church" see also ht......