 |
| Photograph of the Accused Church |
These legal issues are not strictly academic.
Indeed, just ask a Church Pastor who is now in prison as a result of them.
Walter "Chick" McGill was apprehended and turned over to San Bernardino County law enforcement on the campus of church-run Loma Linda University in Loma Linda, California on July 13.
McGill had used the phrase “Creation Seventh-day Adventist” to name his small church congregation in Guys, Tennessee, seen left.
In 2005, the Adventist world church’s Office of General Counsel claims that it first demanded that McGill cease using the name “Seventh-day Adventist” on his church and on several websites. One year later, the church filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against McGill, suing him for wrongful use of “Seventh-day Adventist.”
 |
| Photograph of Walter McGill |
The Seventh-day Adventist Church’s name is a federally registered trademark and can legally apply only to official church congregations, entities, institutions, denominational ministries and certain lay and professional groups as approved by the world church headquarters.
In May of this year, the U.S. District Court made a finding that McGill was in contempt for not complying with court orders to remove the signs, and issuing a warrant for his arrest.
In April, McGill had told a Tennessee news team that "[w]e really would like to comply with the Court Orders. We respect the Courts, we respect the law. But in this case the law is violating our consciences and we must put our consciences before the law." He also said he planned a hunger strike once imprisoned.
Responding to McGill’s recent arrest, Seventh-day Adventist Church officials have emphasized that McGill was imprisoned strictly for ignoring the court’s orders. “Mr. McGill is free to engage in any ministry he wants, preach whatever he wants, say whatever he wants,” McFarland said. “What he simply cannot do is falsely associate himself with the work of the Seventh-day Adventist Church."
Garrett Caldwell, Adventist world church Public Relations director and church spokesman, added that in cases such as McGill’s, the church is fundamentally protecting its identity.
“People understand what identity theft means on a personal level and how devastating it can be to an individual or a family,” Caldwell said.
“When a congregation that has never had a connection with our denomination, and who does not wish to, because of differing beliefs, wants to simply co-opt our name, we should not overlook this or find this acceptable. To do so would be irresponsible on our part,” he added.
Video of an interview with an Assistant Pastor of the accused Church is below. He accuses the official Seventh day Adventist Church of lying about the facts, and claims that his church prefers to not be confused with the established Seventh day Adventist church.
In any event, regardless of the merits, as we have previously noted, and as evidenced by the video below, the application of current commercial trademark laws in the context of religious liberty remains an uneasy fit.
In any event, regardless of the merits, as we have previously noted, and as evidenced by the video below, the application of current commercial trademark laws in the context of religious liberty remains an uneasy fit.
Hello Mr. Gioconda,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your coverage of this story. As the individual in the video attached to this post, I would like to add a couple of brief comments:
First, while the congregation in Guys, TN was the one involved in the Federal suit, it is not the only one. The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church is an international denomination with congregations and members as widely dispersed as Uganda, Canada, and Central America.
Secondly, allow me to provide some relevant quotes from Court decisions in our case that should help resolve the question of whether our church wishes to be confused with the Plaintiff's denomination:
"While the use of the mark was certainly knowing, there is no evidence that the Defendant intended to confuse the public into believing that his church was one of the Plaintiffs’. Rather, the proof supports the conclusion that they chose the name based on a divine revelation." (Judge J. Daniel Breen, Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment)
"The evidence supports the conclusion that the Defendant chose the name for his church based on a divine revelation, rather than a desire to profit from any already established good-will towards the Plaintiffs’ church." (Ibid.)
"The Plaintiffs rely heavily on the fourth element, evidence of actual confusion, in their motion for summary judgment. . . The only evidence of actual confusion presented by the Plaintiffs are entries in the guest book of the Defendant’s website by visitors to the site. . . these somewhat ambiguous entries do not conclusively indicate that these visitors mistakenly believed that the Defendant’s church was part of the “mother” church. . . Thus, there is no persuasive evidence of actual confusion." (Ibid.)
"So far, no one has questioned the sincerity of McGill’s belief that God requires him to continue his infringing use of the plaintiffs’ marks. Being compelled to stop could substantially burden his religious practice." (Judge Karen Moore writing for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit)
Thank you for your consideration,
- Lucan Chartier
Rev. Chartier: Thank you for your contribution to the Gioconda Law Blog's discussion of this matter.
ReplyDeleteOur readers certainly appreciate your contribution and clarification.
Joseph C. Gioconda, Esq.
Mr. Gioconda,
ReplyDeleteYour article reads, "In May of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit upheld a finding that McGill was in contempt for not complying with court orders to remove the signs, and affirming a warrant for his arrest." I am not aware of any involvement by the 6th Circuit this year. I believe that bit of information is erroneous, originating with Mr. Todd McFarland, Associate General Counsel for the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As a pro se litigant in this case, surely I would have been privy to any such court action. It was factually the honorable District Court Judge J. Daniel Breen (Western District of Tennessee Eastern Division) who directed the issuance of an arrest warrant following his contempt order. To the best of my knowledge, the contempt order was filed April 5, 2012, and the warrant was issued May 2, 2012 by the District Court Clerk.
Thank you for the opportunity to proof the record.
Respectfully submitted,
Pastor Walter "Chick" McGill
Thank you for the correction, Pastor. We have revised the post.
ReplyDelete