First Independent Church of Scientology

Discussion in 'Independent Scientology' started by CommunicatorIC, Jan 21, 2016.

  1. First Independent Church of Scientology

    Trademark Application: First Independent Church of Scientology

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *


    This trademark (serial no. 86817837, mark text "FIRST INDEPENDENT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY") was filed with USPTO on 2015-11-12 and has a current status of "new application - record initialized not assigned to examiner". Use the following table to research its status, prosecution history events, classification of goods & services, and current owner etc.

    Basic Information

    Mark Physical Characteristics Standard character mark
    Trademark Current Status New application - record initialized not assigned to examiner
    Trademark Current Status Date 2015-11-17
    Registration Number 0
    Registration Date
    Serial Number 86817837
    Trademark Application Filing Date 2015-11-12


    Trademark Application First Independent Church of Scientology.jpg

    Mark Classification

    Primary Classification Code 045 Mark First Use Anywhere: N/A
    Mark First Use in Commerce: N/A
    Class Status: Active
    Class Status Date: 2015-11-17
    International Class: Personal and social rendered by others to meet the needs of individuals (e.g., social events services, funeral services, matrimonial agencies, etc.) / Security services for the protection of property and individuals (45);
    Prior U.S. Class: 1. Miscellaneous (100); 2. Advertising and Business (101);
    Classification Statement: Spiritual ministry services

    Mark Owner Information

    Owning Party Type: Original Applicant
    Owner Name: JAMES R. FONDA
    Legal Entity Type: Individual
    Address: 655 N. Central Avenue, 17th Floor, Glendale, CA 91203


    Correspondent: RAYMOND R. TABANDEH
    CHRISTIE, PARKER & HALE, LLP, P.O. BOX 29001, GLENDALE, CA 91209-9001
    Attorney Name Raymond R. Tabandeh
    Attorney No. 79176/F558

    Prosecution History Events

    Event Date Event Description

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *

    HT - WWP:

    US Patent Office File:
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Domain Registered for First Independent Church of Scientology: FICOFS.INFO

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Whois Record for

    Email is associated with ~3 domains
    is associated with ~1,827,438 domains
    is associated with ~94,548 domains

    Registrant Org First Independent Church of Scientology is associated with ~2 other domains
    Dates Created on 2016-01-14 - Expires on 2017-01-14
    IP Address - 39 other sites hosted on this server
    IP Location United States - Missouri - Kansas City - 1&1 Internet Inc.
    ASN United States AS8560 ONEANDONE-AS 1&1 Internet AG (registered Nov 26, 1997)
    Domain Status Registered And Active Website
    Whois History 1 record has been archived since 2016-01-16
    IP History 1 change on 2 unique IP addresses over 0 years
    Hosting History 1 change on 2 unique name servers over 0 year
    Whois Server
    Website Title None given.
    Response Code 200
    SEO Score 0%


    Whois Record ( last updated on 2016-01-21 )

    Domain Name: FICOFS.INFO
    Domain ID: D503300000000707872-LRMS
    WHOIS Server:
    Referral URL:
    Updated Date:
    Creation Date: 2016-01-14T23:35:38Z
    Registry Expiry Date: 2017-01-14T23:35:38Z
    Sponsoring Registrar: 1&1 Internet AG
    Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 83
    Domain Status: serverTransferProhibited
    Registrant ID: 1ejkavoppf4
    Registrant Name: James Fonda
    Registrant Organization: First Independent Church of Scientology
    Registrant Street: 655 N Central Ave
    Registrant Street: FL 1700
    Registrant City: Glendale
    Registrant State/Province: CA
    Registrant Postal Code: 91203
    Registrant Country: US
    Registrant Phone: +1.4082507027
    Registrant Phone Ext:
    Registrant Fax:
    Registrant Fax Ext:
    Registrant Email:
    Admin ID: 1ejkbhcievj
    Admin Name: James Fonda
    Admin Organization: First Independent Church of Scientology
    Admin Street: 655 N Central Ave
    Admin Street: FL 1700
    Admin City: Glendale
    Admin State/Province: CA
    Admin Postal Code: 91203
    Admin Country: US
    Admin Phone: +1.4082507027
    Admin Phone Ext:
    Admin Fax:
    Admin Fax Ext:
    Admin Email:
    Tech ID: C3594293-LRMS
    Tech Name: Hostmaster ONEANDONE
    Tech Organization: 1&1 Internet Inc.
    Tech Street: 701 Lee Rd.
    Tech Street: Suite 300
    Tech City: Chesterbrook
    Tech State/Province: PA
    Tech Postal Code: 19087
    Tech Country: US
    Tech Phone: +1.8774612631
    Tech Phone Ext:
    Tech Fax: +1.6105601501
    Tech Fax Ext:
    Tech Email:
    Billing ID: SPAG-41783875
    Billing Name: Hostmaster EINSUNDEINS
    Billing Organization: 1&1 Internet AG
    Billing Street: Ernst-Frey-Str. 10
    Billing City: Karlsruhe
    Billing State/Province:
    Billing Postal Code: 76135
    Billing Country: DE
    Billing Phone: +49.721913747660
    Billing Phone Ext:
    Billing Fax: +49.72191374246
    Billing Fax Ext:
    Billing Email:
    Name Server: NS-US.1AND1-DNS.COM
    Name Server: NS-US.1AND1-DNS.US
    Name Server: NS-US.1AND1-DNS.DE
    Name Server: NS-US.1AND1-DNS.ORG
    DNSSEC: unsigned

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I saw Karen de la Carriere talking about his very subject on ESMB. I also noticed that no one else there talked about it. I wonder how involved is she personally on this.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  4. Well, her only source of money (besides her fricky art that I can't see many people wanting to buy) is her auditing people. So I assume she must be very involved in this and her cowboy boots must be all over this like flies on shit.

    What still puzzles me is her comments against the tek and ElRon, yet she still take money from people to try to make them uber-race.

    Anyhow, if anyone has any evidence of her involvement on this, I would love to discuss it :p
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  5. Very good observation. I have noticed the same. Especially after many anons and exes (and OSA bots most likely) challenged her auditing people while attacking the tech and LRH.

    I am sure she is deeply involved in this shit. Has her signature all over the place.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  6. If this is true, these "New Church" should be picketed just like the "real" Church. Same fucking animal. Different spots.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
    • Like Like x 2
  7. The Internet Member

    Maybe later. Right now they serve our cause by tempting CoS members to leave.
    • Like Like x 4
  8. BigBeard Member

    Whatever the motivation behind this, it could get interesting if they try for the same "unique" tax breaks Cof$ was granted by the IRS.

    • Like Like x 5
  9. Quentinanon Member

    Wonder if it is an GO/OSA front group like the American Cultural Association was back in the early 1980's.
    • Like Like x 1
  10. JohnnyRUClear Member

    Perhaps bored anons trolling Davey?
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Random guy Member

    It's not entirely impossible, but my guess these chaps are serious. Breaking the Scientology=COS meme would be a good thing though.
    • Like Like x 1
  12. I disagree. They are both BAD things. Scientology or Indie Scientology both push the ElRon tech and that is what makes people into sheeple and brainwashed zombies.

    The tech has to go together with anyone that applies it.

    Or do you want an Indie Purif?

    Fuck that.
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  13. This is what a Los Angeles Superior Court Judge had to say about Karen de la Carriere - an Indie "auditor of the highest level" and the woman behind all this shit:

    “The Court has concluded that both parties (and especially Carriere) were untruthful about many aspects of the case – presenting testimony that was false, conflicting, exaggerated and evasive. In making its factual determinations, the Court has accepted credible documents and has accepted and applied the credible parts of the testimony by Greene and (to a lesser extent) Carriere.”

    Michael Johnson
    Los Angeles Superior Court Judge
    This message by notJeffrey has been hidden due to negative ratings. (Show message)
    • Dislike Dislike x 3
  14. The Internet Member

    The people who dislike Indies are free to protest them. Upload some vids for our enjoyment if you do.

    Put up or shut up guys.
    • Like Like x 3
  15. Religious Liberty League on the First Independent Church of Scientology.

    The Religious Liberty League, an Independent Scientology organization, has an article on the First Independent Church of Scientology. As emphasized below, the article provides new information.

    Religious Liberty League: First Independent Church of Scientology

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    On November 12, 2015, an application for trademark for the name First Independent Church of Scientology was filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

    On or about the same date, the name was reserved by the California Secretary of State for use within sixty (60) days as a nonprofit religious corporation, and when the 60-day period expired, the name was reserved for a second 60-day period.

    Both filings were initiated by former church member, long-time Scientologist, Jim Fonda.

    In our article posted on October 25, 2015, entitled Breaking the Monopoly, we indicated that Religious Liberty League was involved in activities to break the church’s – or, more accurately, David Miscavige’s – monopoly over Scientology. The initial step in our program is to break the church’s trademark for the word Scientology.

    We consider it a fundamental right that all persons who desire to practice the religion of Scientology are free to do so – and call it Scientology! A fundamental right is inalienable. It is not granted to one by the state or by an institution or by any mortal person. And therefore, it cannot be abridged by any agency less than God.

    That Miscavige thinks he can, by arbitrary dictate and onerous conditions, control who can and who cannot practice the religion of Scientology, demonstrates a tyrannical disregard for basic human rights. Miscavige might very well expect the courts to uphold what the government itself is prohibited from doing under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If so, we are prepared to prove him wrong.

    Obviously, we will not publicly reveal the complete plans and strategies. We will report, however, that we expect the articles of incorporation for the First Independent Church of Scientology (FICofS) to be filed in February 2016. A period of establishment will follow, including surveys, recruitment, and so on. FICofS intends to reach out to the field, grant a general amnesty, restore certification, and license groups and field auditors, thereby giving them religious cloaking and legal protection for their activities, which have lately come under threat through cease and desist letters sent to field practitioners by church attorneys.

    Imagine if everyone delivering standard technology outside the church were free to do so without inhibition or fear of legal consequences.

    Moreover, FICofS is intended to become a central organization, and a foothold, for the technology of Scientology and the Bridge[1] as developed by LRH – not the altered, unpopular Miscavige version – in order to ensure that it is available for this and future generations. It will be administered with a lightness of organization, and be inclusive and tolerant, rather than status-oriented and controlling. The new church will adopt the 1968 Reform Code of Scientology, and thereby recognize the distinction between fair criticism and religious persecution, accepting and internally handling the former, and stomping on the latter. FICofS will have no fair game policy and no security checks (except as part of an auditing program in which priest-penitent privileges attach). And it will forever abolish the disconnection policy! The liberal concepts expressed by LRH in the lecture, Attitude & Conduct of Scientology[2], will be applied in full.


    FICofS is willing to negotiate with the church fair compensation for its use of other trademarks and copyrighted (pre-Miscavige-altered) materials necessary to deliver standard Scientology services and, if an impasse is reached, to submit the issue to independent mediation. If given no reasonable offer or means of mediation, and left with no viable alternative, however, Religious Liberty League will assist the FICofS to lawfully break those proprietary rights as well.


    FICofS is willing to enter into negotiations for reconciliation with the church, now or in the future. The proposed guidelines for reconciliation are as follows:

    * That corporate checks and balances of the governing corporations, Church of Spiritual Technology (CST) and Church of Scientology International (CSI) be instituted fully, in accordance with bylaws written and/or approved by LRH.

    * That each trustee and general director read their respective LRH-approved corporate bylaws; read the California Nonprofit Religious Corporation Code, with particular emphasis on sections 9210(a) & (b) that require: “[t]he activities and affairs of a corporation…be conducted and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under the direction of the board.”

    * That each board of trustees of CST and CSI be provided funds to retain separate legal counsel to advise them on the legal duties with respect to each corporation and in relation to each other.

    * That CST boards independently investigate and decide whether to exercise the options granted to CST by LRH in his estate documents, using the guidelines therein, to purchase from RTC, for a mere $100 each, the trademarks and trade secrets of Scientology.

    * That CST and/or CSI cause an internal investigation overseen by a reputable, trusted outside agency or law firm into the charges leveled against David Miscavige, including but not limited to the following:

    a) alteration of LRH materials; b) alteration of the Bridge; c) gross additives to training requirements and the virtual elimination of new auditors being made; d) arbitraries introduced into the eligibility requirements for the Upper Levels, e.g., frequent and unnecessary – and therefore, harmful – security checks for parishioners auditing on solo NOTs;[3] e) an ARCXen field [4]; f) technical failures; g) refusal to investigate charges of corruption, abuse and inhumane treatment, and instead attacking the accusers, destroying the credibility of the church and lowering its ethics presence in the media dramatically, which allowed the religious hate mongerers and black propagandists to take over and control the narrative on Scientology; h) subverting the ethics and justice codes of Scientology and ushering in an era of oppressive, arbitrary rule and a resultant declining membership base; i) false reports to LRH while he was alive, resulting in the destruction of a viable mission network, and the introduction of the destructive, publicly-loathed policy of disconnection; and j) creating external influences to Scientology organizations in the form of donation entities, such as the IAS and building funds, which act in direct competition with Scientology organizations for parishioner donations.

    * That David Miscavige resign or be removed from post pending the investigation.

    * That the findings of the internal investigation be broadly published along with recommendations for measures to be taken to prevent their recurrence.

    * If these steps are taken to the satisfaction of FICofS, then it will enter into an agreement of reconciliation, which will include, among other things, the requirement that CST and CSI expand their boards of trustees and directors, as permitted in the original bylaws approved by LRH, from three (3) members on each board to seven (7) members. And that FICofS be given the power in perpetuity to fill three seats on each board, and that the six members on each board agree upon the seventh member.

    This proposal should be viewed as an expression of yet another good faith attempt by Scientologists to discharge their duty to Keep Scientology Working. Too many Scientologists have been disenfranchised and disconnected from their church as a result of the non-application and alteration of Scientology scripture by David Miscavige, as alleged above, which they refused, and still refuse, to support, And now, in order to freely practice their chosen religion, and to further the aims of Scientology, they are forced to form a new church, the name of which will be:

    The First Independent Church of Scientology.
    [1] The “Bridge” is a chart that lists the various training and auditing levels of Scientology.
    [2] 4th London ACC, 3 November 1955.
    [3] Solo NOTS is a particular Scientology auditing action.
    [4] ARCXen is a Scientology acronym for a break in Affinity, Reality, and Communication, a term which means a person is upset.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
    • Like Like x 1
  16. they are after the money ... biz as usual:


    To donate select an amount
      • $5
      • $10
      • $25
      • $35
      • $50
      • $100
      • $250
      • $500
      • $1000
      • Other
      • Subscribe to our newsletter
      • GIVE NOW

    Religious Liberty League is a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization. Your donations are tax deductible.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  17. The Internet Member

  18. I will once again cite the Scientology exit survey:

    According to that data, less than 20% of those who leave even try to participate in the indy / freezone field. Of those, about 3/4 are gone within five years.

    I have not seen any evidence that any indy group has had any success recruiting anyone who wasn't leaving the CoS.

    Scientology appears to require its coercive methods in order to keep members. Without those people realize it doesn't work and wander off.

    So protest the indy field if you like but it seems kind of pointless to me.
    • Like Like x 5
  19. That's good to know if those statistics are true. I just disagree and think that all new ex-scientologists are quite vulnerable to exploitation and expose themselves to future abuses following L. Ron Hubbard's abusive policies and mind-numbing processing under the new and ''We're not like the others, same-thing only different Indies.''

    There are no clears, none, zero, it's a scam, they are commiting fraud selling thier brand of LRH 'Tech' that's been cherry-picked with tons of LRH policies to enforce at their whim while they cash in on 'donations'.

    Will these tax deductible 'charitable' donations to this new Independent phony nonprofit be fixed?
    All exes need to move on from Hubbard's scam including these deluded Indies who now try to profit from it.

    This is a disgrace, The Church of Scientology has squirreled away billions of 'Nonprofits' scammed from their victims, Independent squirreling has now been given the go-ahead to continue draining these poor bastards after they get out.

    Ex-scientologists generally have very little money and desrve a fresh start, not several years of more lies, and indoctrination with 'Independent' supervision.

    Anyone selling LRH bogus, hurtful 'Tech' can not be trusted in any way.

    The very last thing an ex-scientologist needs is to be scammed with more nonworking LRH 'Tech' again by these scamming cons in the Independent field.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  20. Random guy Member

    Sure, but you got to admit the popcorn potential is great!
    • Like Like x 2
  21. BigBeard Member

    Part of me wonders if this whole thing is to force the IRS to revisit the "fixed" donation issue, which no one but $cientology is currently allowed to do. If these guys try it and the IRS says, "No. Not allowed.", it may finally result in someone with a good case for having 'standing' being able to sue the IRS about it.

    • Like Like x 2
  22. DeathHamster Member

    ^^ The only problem with that is that they'll be suing in the wrong direction again. Like Sklar, where the judges were begging someone to sue against Scientology's deal so that they could rule it unconstitutional.
    • Like Like x 3
  23. Independent Scientology Milestone Two welcomes the First Independent Church of Scientology

    Milestone Two: Breaking news

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Posted by Lana M.

    January 29, 2016

    by MS2 Admin

    A recent article on the Religious Liberty League blog is being republished to make the information available to as many as possible.

    The article is called the First Independent Church of Scientology.

    Please share this with those you know.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
  24. "My Scientology Blog" on the First Independent Church of Scientology.

    [NOTE: "My Scientology Blog" is not my Scientology blog - i.e., a blog by Communicator I/C.]

    My Scientology Blog: Religious Liberty League » The First Independent Church of Scientology


    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    We move from the fascinating subject of UFOs to this recent article posted on the Religious Liberty League’s website today.

    My only personal criticism is that I never believed that Miscavige was personally responsible for the adverse changes in the Organizational structure of the Church of Scientology or solely responsible for the various Technical alterations which began prior to him falsely assuming the mantel of leadership.

    Ironically it was as I have noted earlier David Mayo who personally introduced the changes to Scientology’s Grade Chart which are still being held in place by the current regime. Despite the fact that Mayo was declared a “ Squirrel“. The pejorative granted to anyone who alters Scientology technically .

    Also as covered previously these include the arbitrary omission of several sections of Advanced Courses from what is known as OT III Expanded to the original OT VII.

    Of course like common criminals they still leave clues at the scene of the crime and despite the current regime’s effort to relegate these levels to some Orwellian memory hole they are still mentioned in various writings by Hubbard even though these were later altered after the theft.

    Another thing that Miscavige is given undue credit for is the destruction of the Mission or more accurately Franchise network of Scientology. A drama he only played a supporting role in.

    That as well as being part of a cabal or conspiracy which “overthrew” the properly constituted authority of the Church which at time had been assigned to Controller of Scientology. Mary Sue Hubbard which according to the Scientology Ethics and Justice Codes is considered a High Crime or Suppressive Act.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
  25. thesneakster Member

    Merrell Vannier (unfortunately to my way of thinking) does not seem to be willing to accept that Ron Hubbard basically engineered his own overthrow by granting the slimey snake David "Darth Midget" Miscavige pretty much unlimited authority as the I/C of Mission All Clear (that was supposed to make it safe for Hubbard to come out of hiding, return to his family and go back to working on his Technical Training Films) on the suggestion of his Household Unit "friend" Pat Broeker. The simple Scientology technical explanation for this monumental stupidity is that Hubbard went PTS, perhaps to "the government". All too many people thought of Ron Hubbard as an infallible demigod to whom his own Tech did not apparently apply.

    Michael A. Hobson
    Independent Scientologist
    • Like Like x 1
  26. The Internet Member

    • Like Like x 2
  27. [IMG]
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
  28. A bit more information. It appears the new First Independent Church of Scientology will have a Corrections Division, run internships, and adhere to Standard Tech.

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    admin January 31, 2016 at 6:34 pm Reply

    Thanks for for posting. Very apropos. (I edited it slightly, as you can see, mainly to define the Scientology term “thetan” for our non-Scientology audience.)

    One of the unique features to Scientology is its organizational structure, which makes it self-correcting. For example, it has a division devoted to spotting and fixing errors or departures from the standard use of the technology. Every practitioner makes mistakes. Without a Correction division, however, mistakes can go uncorrected and become a pattern or practice. In an independent field, there is no “Corrections” division. There is no central place to report deviations from standard tech, let alone be corrected. What has taken its place is a rumor line for who is standard and who is not, which, among other things, is subject to counterintelligence activities in the form of planted rumors. With a central organization, a report could be sent to its Corrections division, thereby obviating the perceived need to warn others about a particular practitioner.

    Training with properly run internships is something else that is missing in the field that a central organization can provide. (We realize that some people have training facilities, mostly makeshift and hidden – we found one tucked away in the hills of Los Angeles, for example, after diligent searching – it has an ultra low profile and, consequently, rarely more than a student or two, which is far from ideal.) Mostly, the training is “read it, drill it, do it,” which not much drilling. This is not viable for the expansion of Scientology.

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
    • Like Like x 1
  29. DeathHamster Member

    • Like Like x 2
  30. As noted above, Jiim Fonda acquired the domain on behalf of the First Independent Church of Scientology.

    Jim Fonda has now also acquired the following domains on behalf of the First Independent Church of Scientology:













    • Like Like x 1
  31. The news about the First Independent Church of Scientology has reached a Swedish website. The website associates another name with the FICOS -- Ingrid Smith, a well-known Independent Scientology Auditor who has posted articles and commented on the Milestone Two blog. I don't know where they got Ingrid's name.

    The Swedish to English Google translation is below

    * * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

    Independent Scientology Church

    The This is an interesting document. A group of former members have initiated an application for trademark for the name of The First Independent Church of Scientology (FICofS).

    David Miscavige claims that no one outside the church has the right to call himself a Scientologist and made it illegal to use the name Scientology in any business.

    The right to call himself a Scientologist

    The application for a trademark is thus an attempt to challenge Miscavige arbitrary Directive. Miscavige can be shown not to prevent people from using Scientology and now it meaning that he also can not prevent them from calling it for what it is, Scientology.

    FICofS intends to form a central organization for the original idea, but the destructive changes Miscavige introduced.

    I feel right now to the two people involved, Jim Fonda and Ingrid Smith.

    Lovely to the challenge at the church's trademark. Scientology and the Church are two different things. Miscavige has systematically totalperverterat whole topic and it stings in your eyes when you see him standing there as the official representative of the philosophy. He has nothing to do there.

    Stefan Tunedal
    January 29, 2016

    * * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *
    • Like Like x 1
    • Like Like x 1
  32. TMEP 1715.02, referred to in the Memorandum above, provides:

    * * * * * BEGIN QUOTATION * * * * *

    1715.02 Letter of Protest Filed Before Publication

    1715.02(a) Standard of Review for Letter of Protest Filed Before Publication

    The Deputy Commissioner will accept a letter of protest filed before publication in all cases where it is determined that the evidence is relevant and supports any reasonable ground for refusal appropriate in ex parte examination. The letter of protest will be reviewed and decided upon even if the examining attorney has not yet taken a first action in the application that is the subject of the letter of protest. Upon acceptance of a letter of protest, the Deputy Commissioner will forward the relevant evidence (but not the letter of protest itself) to the examining attorney. Letters of protest filed before publication will be denied if they merely present purely adversarial arguments, or are otherwise inappropriate.

    A letter of protest filed before publication but reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner after publication will be reviewed under the pre-publication standard. See TMEP §1715.02(b).

    A letter of protest filed before publication will be dismissed as moot when the issue raised has already been considered by the examining attorney unless: (1) the evidence provided by the protestor is significant additional evidence not currently of record in the application; or (2) the examining attorney clearly erred in his or her consideration of the issue and such error would result in the issuance of a registration in violation of the Trademark Act or applicable rules. See TMEP §706.01 regarding clear error.

    1715.02(b) Action by Examining Attorney Before Publication

    Under the standard for accepting a pre-publication letter of protest, the examining attorney is not required to issue a refusal as a result of the acceptance. The examining attorney is required only to consider the evidence and make an independent determination whether to issue the requirement or refusal requested in the letter of protest. The examining attorney need not inform the applicant that a letter of protest was accepted unless he or she is issuing a refusal based upon the information provided with the letter of protest. The prosecution history of the application will reflect the acceptance of a letter of protest and a memorandum accepting the letter of protest and all relevant evidence will become part of the official record. If the examining attorney decides against issuing the requirement or refusal, a Note to the File must be entered in the record, indicating that the evidence was reviewed.

    Letters of Protest Filed Before Publication but Accepted After Publication

    In certain circumstances, a letter of protest filed before publication may not be reviewed by the Deputy Commissioner until after publication or during the period when the USPTO cannot withdraw the mark from publication. Such letters are reviewed under the pre-publication standard. If accepted and referred to the examining attorney after publication, the examining attorney is not required to issue a refusal or requirement as a result of the acceptance. However, the examining attorney should consult with his or her managing attorney to determine whether a refusal or requirement is warranted.

    If it is determined that a refusal or requirement must be made after publication and prior to the filing of a notice of opposition or issuance of a notice of allowance, the examining attorney must request that the Director restore jurisdiction so that the examining attorney may take action on the application. See TMEP §1504.04. If a notice of opposition has been filed, the examining attorney must request that the Board remand the application so that the examining attorney may take the specified action. See TMEP §1504.05.

    If the letter of protest concerns a mark in an intent-to-use application where a notice of allowance has issued, the examining attorney has jurisdiction over the application. 37 C.F.R. §2.84(a). If the examining attorney determines, after consulting with his or her managing attorney, that a refusal or requirement must be made, and a statement of use has not been filed, before issuing an Office action, he or she must contact the ITU/Divisional Unit to cancel the notice of allowance and refund any fees paid for requests for an extension of time to file a statement of use. See TMEP §1106.03.

    If the letter of protest concerns a mark for which a statement of use has been filed, the examining attorney has jurisdiction over the application. If the examining attorney determines, after consulting with his or her managing attorney, that a refusal or requirement must be made, and no action has been taken on the statement of use, he or she should review the statement of use and include any issues relevant to the statement of use in the Office action resulting from the letter of protest. If an Office action regarding the statement of use has already issued, the examining attorney must issue a supplemental action regarding the refusal(s) or requirement(s) resulting from the letter of protest and incorporating by reference or restating any other outstanding refusal(s) or requirement(s).

    * * * * * END QUOTATION * * * * *
  33. thesneakster Member

  34. BigBeard Member

    If the Trademark Office gives this one to $cientology, it's going to really upset the Presbbyterian break off denominations, and other churches, that split off and kept the original churches name as part of their own.

    If the FICS folks are smart, they'll publicize the heck out of this among those 'break off' churches.

    • Like Like x 3
  35. Random guy Member

    Oh, this could be fun!
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins