Scientology dos not like my site :(

Subject: Unauthorized Use of Registered Trademark
Date: Tue, 8 JUNE 2008
From:AMPaquette@aol.com
To: Barbara Schwarz
barbaraschwarzrulz@gmail.com

Dear Barbara Schwarz,

Our office represents Religious Technology Center ("RTC"), the owner of the federally registered trademark and service mark "SCIENTOLOGY". The "SCIENTOLOGY" mark is registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office under registration numbers 1,755,441; 1,540,928; 1,342,353; 1,329,474; 1,318,717; 1,306,997; and 0898018. "SCIENTOLOGY" is also registered as a trade and service mark in numerous countries throughout the world under registration numbers B 119,381; 153,974; 180,601; B 153,085; B 153,086; 180600. We also represent the Church of Scientology International ("CSI"), which is the licensee of the "Scientology" trademark.

We have been advised that you have registered a domain name with Yahoo, Inc., a United States domain registrar and agreed, through Yahoo's Registration Agreement, Governing Law and Jurisdiction for Disputes, to submit to the jurisdiction of Bellevue, Washington, regarding the following domain name:

"Scientologyrulz.com"

You are hereby on notice that the registration and use of this domain name in this fashion has caused your name to be falsely associated with our client's registered mark, SCIENTOLOGY, as owner and creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source or sponsorship of this domain name in violation of United States state and federal law, including the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.  1125(a).

The fact that you have added "rulz" after "Scientology" does not protect you from trademark infringement. Duly noted that attempts at hiding under the use of humor or "parody" to protect you from trademark infringement have also failed. In order for a website to be humorous or fall under the classification of "parody" it first must be funny, which this site clearly is not. Huish Detergents, Inc. v. Orange Glo Intern, Inc., 2002 WL 32157171 (D.Utah 2002) (holding that minor differences in spelling and variations and arrangements of letters was insufficient to protect against trademark infringement); Salton, Inc. v. Cornwall Corporation, 477 F.Supp. 975 (D.C.N.J. 1979) (holding that, even though not completely identical, defendant's term was so like the plaintiff's in form, spelling, and sound as to constitute trademark infringement). The adoption of the term "Scientologyrulz" is so like the federally registered trademark "Scientology" in form, spelling and sound as to constitute infringement pursuant to the Lanham TradeMark Act, 15 U.S.C.  1114. AMF v. Sleekcraft Boats, 599 F.2d 341 (9th Cir. 1979); G.D. Searle & Company v. Chas. Pfizer & Company, 265 F.2d 385 (7th Cir. 1959). According to UrbanDictionary.com, the definition of "rulz" is: An incorrect way to spell rules. Most commonly written by the lazy, dyslexic, and just plain old Down Syndrome victims http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rulz

Likewise, our client's registered trademark of "SCIENTOLOGY" is eleven letters and most importantly an "Ology". Your site is "likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person." No one is going to actually believe that Scientology "rulz". ex. America Online, Inc. v. IMS, 24 F.Supp.2d 548, 551 (E.D.Va. 1998). Could someone say that Scientology rulz? Maybe? Probably not. Though in your arrogance and lul-ful ways, the "rulz" aspect of the site does not come across. Our lawyers proved this by closely reviewing the site. Not one of us laughed or chuckled even once.

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") is also implicated by your registration of this domain name. Shields v. Zuccarini, 254 F.3d 476 (3rd Cit. 2001). Statutory damages can be awarded for violation of the Act in an amount not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 for each domain name. 15 U.S.C. Section 1117(d). The court in Shields imposed a $30,000 statutory damage award against a cybersquatter under the Act. All your base are belong to us.

Pretty please, we ask that you cease and desist use of this domain name and transfer it to our client, CSI. We are willing to pay for your registration and transfer fees incurred in this matter.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
Ava Paquette
Moxon & Kobrin
3055 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, California 90010
Tel: (213) 487-4468
Fax: (213) 487-5385