Sustain'd

comments

Your instructions worked fine, thank you for posting them. This is really interesting, so much so I spent some time reading the Wikipedia trademark article. It appears that if the trademark is granted, there has to be a certain level of enforcement in order to keep it.
written by rickety 607 days ago
First used in Commerce 1833-06-01
written by trwth 604 days ago

Shoot, cancyn, the link for your screencap is coming back 404.
written by naiah 607 days ago
I should also say that I can't find that option that you mention in #2, and that the regular search only has 1 hit for Mormon, and that's not it...

I am intrigued, though, by the idea--not thrilled, but intrigued. I agree it'd be tantamount to someone attempting to patent 'protestant;' I can't imagine that it will be granted. I can see why the attempt would be made, in th wake of all the broughaha around the FLDS and Warren Jeffs and all, and all the media confusion that ensued. Like it or not, though, we share a common spiritual root with those people. Granted, what they've gone and done with it, in many ways is morally reprehnsible at best, but that doesn't change the past. They're also not the only other church to share that root. There's the CoC, and the Church of Christ, the Strangites, among others. I just don't see the patent as being grantable... (even if I can't find the document about it...)
written by naiah 607 days ago

Wild--it's been in the works for years...
written by naiah 607 days ago

It may not appear to cast the Church in a poor light to everyone. I like it. Perhaps unintended consequences will flow from this action but nevertheless it is worth a try.
written by rickety 606 days ago

Amen.
written by SilusGrok 607 days ago
Intellectual Reserve also claims a trademark on "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The Strangites don't have a dash, nor a definite article in their name, and they capitalize the "D" in day: "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints". All of the other Missouri-based restoration churches (at least 8 or 10 that I know of) also seem to dispense with the hyphen, and capitalize "Day". So, I am not sure exactly what the LDS church hopes to preserve in their trademark of their full name, considering they have the "oddball" name; no one seems to be copying it, and in fact, it is not the original name of the church.

I do not know how the FLDS spell out their name. The other fundamentalist churches do not use the full name, as they generally do not believe they are "replacements" of the main church, and they tend to acknowledge the LDS church as still being "the" church.

The Bickertonites incorporated in 1941 as the Church of Jesus Christ. And yet the LDS church does not respect this, insisting that instead of "Mormon" and "LDS" the media refer to them by full name on first reference and as the Church of Jesus Christ on subsequent references (see http://tinyurl.com/238kzh ). Perhaps the Bickertonites should sue the LDS church for name infringement.

Interestingly, the new Style Guide (http://tinyurl.com/238kzh) now indicates that "When referring to Church members, the term “Latter-day Saints� is preferred, though “Mormons� is acceptable." Not very long ago--as recently as the last time I looked at the style guide, maybe last year--the use of the word "Mormon" to describe church members was strongly discouraged. Guess they figured it was a losing battle.

The Church under Joseph Smith bore the name without the hyphen and with a capital D: http://strangite.org/Name4.jpg

I hope members and leaders of other restoration churches will oppose this hijacking of the word "Mormon", though. It just isn't right. Just because the Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has the biggest group doesn't mean they get to monopolize the terminology. To allow so would set a dangerous precedent.

I think it's ironic that the Church appeals to the AP style guide in defense of their position that "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after Smith’s death." So now the AP is the definite source on religious succession?

Sorry for the rambling, disjointed comments...just had to say some of these things because it is ploys like this trademark nonsense that make some people wonder what Salt Lake is up to these days.
written by frozenchosenAK 606 days ago

I just about choked when this popped up in my google reader...LOL

http://comedian.blogspot.com/2007/03/from-fark-i-spotted-this-story-about.html
written by canadiancynic 606 days ago

I doubt the church will go after little blogs.
written by willf 603 days ago
The reason it is a big deal is outlined in my rather lengthy comment above: the church has no realistic exclusive claim on the names! Just because they are the biggest Restoration church does not mean they are the only one.
written by frozenchosenAK 603 days ago

I do not think a trademark of this sort can stand the test of law, anymore than someone could trademark Christian, or any other common term that describes a widely held belief system. My point is that NO ONE should be trying to trademark the word. What do you suppose this might mean to the Community of Christ, who also publishes the Book of MORMON? Will they have to seek a license on the word Mormon from the LDS church? SHOULD the LDS church be ABLE to LICENSE religious terminology out to those it wants but not others? Now do you see the problem?
written by frozenchosenAK 600 days ago

who sustained this story

who opposed this story