Isn't that nice.
I'm glad that ACB looked into their position before shooting off a quick letter.
At this point if they are so adimant at getting the domain name, I would sell it to them.
At a nice exorbident price of course.
*******************************************************
*** Life is all good! ***
*******************************************************
>
>Subject: please read and act:Fw: ACB President Hires Attorney to Shut Down Braille Free Press
> From: David Poehlman <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2004 16:00:00 -0500
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Penny Reeder" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 3:22 PM
>Subject: Fwd: ACB President Hires Attorney to Shut Down Braille Free Press
>
>On March 5, I received a letter from Mr. Leonard D. DuBoff, an
>attorney hired by ACB, who demanded that I take
>www.braille-free-press.org off the internet. Mr. DuBoff's letter
>claimed that ACB owns the rights to use the name, "Braille Free
>Press," as a trademark, and that, by using the name, "Braille Free
>Press," and the domain name
>www.braille-free-press.org,
>I was
>infringing upon ACB's rights to use that name. In addition to
>demanding that I take down the
>www.braille-free-press.org
>website,
>ACB demanded I supply the names of any members of the
>"Braille-Free-Press web site," make available all books and records
>indicating any financial activity under the auspices of the site,
>and--in an attempt to intimidate me into immediate silence--pay
>ACB's attorneys' fees in the amount of $1,000 for having hired
>DuBoff!
>
>I went to the U. S. Patent and Trademark Office's web site, where
>citizens are granted access to a database of all registered
>trademarks. I found no record of any registration of the name
>"Braille Free Press." There's no registered trademark for Braille
>Free Press, for Braille Forum, or even for the American Council of
>the Blind, ACB, or any of its several logos, for that matter!
>
>I have spoken with the author of People of Vision. Jim Megivern
>was gracious and forthright. He knew of no right to use the name
>"Braille Free Press" acquired by the American Council of the Blind.
>He had found no record, he told me, of any such acquisition among
>the huge archive of information which he and Marjorie had mined
>for more than ten years during the writing of ACB's history.
>
>In fact, the last time "Braille Free Press" was used to describe a
>publication was between 1959 and 1961, when a few brave
>truth-tellers wrote, copied, and circulated those few editions of
>the Braille Free Press. When ACB was first incorporated--after the
>dissolution of the Braille Free Press Association--George Card,
>who had been rather handily criticized in the pages of The Braille
>Free Press, objected to calling ACB's new publication anything
>resembling "braille free press." Marie Boring came up with the
>name, "The Braille Forum." Everyone liked the name (believing
>that any publication of the American Council of the Blind should
>in fact provide a forum for free and open discussion), and so the
>name, "Braille Free Press" has not been used for more than forty
>years.
>
>With these facts in hand, I sought advice from an attorney, who
>agreed to help me by sending the following letter to Mr. DuBoff and
>to ACB on March 12, 2004:
>[Beginning of Letter]
>Re: Alleged Infringement of the BRAILLE FREE PRESS mark
>
>Dear Mr. DuBoff,
>
>I represent Ms. Reeder in this matter on a pro bono basis.
>Specifically, I have agreed to respond on Ms. Reeder's behalf to
>your cease-and-desist letter of March 5, 2004, which alleges that
>Ms. Reeder has infringed upon the right of the American Council of
>the Blind (ACB) to use the phrase "Braille Free Press."
>
>ACB's trademark infringement claim is without merit. Ms. Reeder,
>who does not own the registration for the
>www.braille-free-press.org domain name, has not infringed upon any
>trademark right owned by ACB. ACB does not possess any right to
>use the BRAILLE FREE PRESS as a trademark. ACB does not own a
>federal registration for the BRAILLE FREE PRESS mark. Furthermore,
>ACB has never used the mark in commerce. Although the individuals
>who published "The Braille Free Press" between 1959 and 1961 used
>the BRAILLE FREE PRESS mark, ACB has never sold, advertised, or
>distributed any products, services, publications, or newsletters,
>or conducted any business under the BRAILLE FREE PRESS mark.
>
>Even if ACB actually used the BRAILLE FREE PRESS mark at some
>point, it has long since abandoned its use of the mark. To the
>best of Ms. Reeder's knowledge, use of the BRAILLE FREE PRESS mark
>in commerce ceased 43 years ago in 1961. According to 15 U.S.C. §
>1127, nonuse of a mark for three consecutive years constitutes
>prima facie evidence of abandonment. Nor has ACB demonstrated an
>intent to resume actual use of the mark in commerce. In fact,
>because no one used the BRAILLE FREE PRESS mark in commerce between
>1961 and 2004, any use of the mark by ACB now would infringe upon
>Ms. Reeder's senior right to use the mark, established by her
>actual use of the BRAILLE FREE PRESS mark since February 2004.
>
>Furthermore, a reasonable consumer is not likely to confuse
>www.braille-free-press.org with ACB. A reasonable consumer would
>realize "The Braille Free Press" is simply a forum for the free and
>uncensored discussion of the policies and governance of ACB and the
>issues affecting blind and visually impaired individuals.
>Furthermore, a reasonable consumer would not be confused as to the
>source of "The Braille Free Press" given the description of the
>purposes of the website, which can be found at
>www.braille-free-press.org/about.php. Although Ms. Reeder is a
>proud ACB member, it is abundantly clear that neither ACB nor the
>current officers and directors of ACB are the sponsors of
>www.braille-free-press.org. There is no likelihood of confusion
>and, therefore, no grounds for injunctive relief.
>
>Even if ACB could establish trademark infringement, ACB would not
>be entitled to an award of damages, or any other monetary relief.
>Neither
>www.braille-free-press.org
>nor "The Braille Free Press" has
>caused ACB any harm or injury, such as lost profits. Furthermore,
>Ms. Reeder does not receive any income, profits, or commercial or
>financial benefits from either
>www.braille-free-press.org
>or "The
>Braille Free Press." Ms. Reeder does not use the BRAILLE FREE
>PRESS mark to solicit donations, advertise, distribute, sell, or
>offer to sell any products, services, or memberships. Ms. Reeder
>has also not produced any packaging, cards, tags, or products
>bearing either
>www.braille-free-press.org
>or "The Braille Free
>Press."
>
>Finally, ACB's counsel would not be entitled to attorneys' fees
>should it pursue further legal action in this matter. Under the
>Lanham Act, a prevailing party may recover attorneys' fees only in
>"exceptional cases, 15 U.S.C. 1117(a), such as where the
>defendant's adoption of a mark is considered willful, malicious,
>fraudulent, or in bad faith. No reasonable person could consider
>Ms. Reeder's adoption of a mark that no one has used in 43 years as
>anything other than a good faith use. Because, however, ACB's
>allegation of trademark infringement by Ms. Reeder is frivolous,
>unreasonable, and pursued in bad faith, if ACB should pursue
>further legal action, then Ms. Reeder shall seek reasonable
>attorneys' fees and costs, and shall pursue all legal claims
>against ACB available to her.
>
>These are just a few of the many legal hurdles ACB would face
>should it continue to pursue this matter. Further legal action
>would not produce a successful result for either ACB or its
>counsel, and would amount to a waste of ACB's limited financial
>resources. In order to resolve this matter amicably, however, Ms.
>Reeder is willing to discuss an agreement.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>Steven Lehotsky
>[END OF LETTER]
>
>Tonight, April 1, 2004 Chris Gray is bringing this matter before
>the Board of Directors of ACB to secure the Board's blessings to
>initiate a lawsuit. Although there is no proof of ACB's ownership
>of any trademark; although there is no proof ACB is going to change
>the name of its publication from The Braille Forum to the Braille
>Free Press; although there is no proof ACB ever plans to provide
>any good or service under the name Braille Free Press; although
>ACB's predecessors(not ACB) were the last people to use the name
>more than 40 years ago; although such a lawsuit would be expensive
>and time-consuming for ACB, its officers and directors, and its
>members; and although I make no money from the web site, and sell
>no products or memberships, it appears that Chris Gray is willing
>to squander the depleted resources of ACB to pursue litigation
>against me and my publication. Gray has apparently decided that it
>is more important to devote his time and anger, and the scarce
>financial resources of ACB, to shutting down The Braille Free Press
>and
>www.braille-free-press.org,
>than to use that energy and those
>resources to fight for the rights of people who are blind.
>
>What do ACB and its members have to gain from this lawsuit? Does
>Chris Gray believe that if he shuts down our site, then he will
>succeed in shutting off the truth? Is he still seeking revenge
>against people who dare to question his judgement, question his
>policies, and ask questions about campaign promises unkept? Will
>members of the ACB Board recognize this attack for what it is:
>Nothing more than a desperate attempt to limit free speech and keep
>information from ACB members?
>
>What do members of ACB think about this use of their membership
>dues? Will the board recognize this attack for what it is worth
>and stop this senseless waste of ACB resources and organizational
>energy? With so much advocacy to be done, with the Randolph-
>Sheppherd blind vending priority teetering on the edge of oblivion,
>with another blind pedestrian being struck and injured or killed
>about every ten days, with hard-won accessible voting equipment
>being scrapped in state after state, with rehabilitation programs
>so committed to the Federation's so-called "philosophy of
>blindness" that a consumer of those services cannot even receive
>training if he or she wants to participate with a guide dog, or to
>forego training under sleep shades, why is the Gray administration
>squandering ACB's resources on frivolous attacks designed to stifle
>free speech and to harass and intimidate a member of the
>organization?
>
>You can make a difference: Tell Gray to cease and desist! Tell
>your board members to act in your best interest. It's time for
>ACB's leaders to get back to the business of leading our
>organization and advocating for the legal and civil rights of
>people who are blind!
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Blind-Democracy mailing list
>[log in to unmask]
>http://www.octothorp.org/mailman/listinfo/blind-democracy
>
>
>VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
>To join or leave the list, send a message to
>[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
>"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
> VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
>http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask] In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html
|
