Today a panel of the US Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals (Denver Colorado) issued a ruling that is of special interest to FAIR and this writer. In a unanimous decision, the court upheld the earlier ruling of the District Court relative to the case originally brought by Utah Lighthouse Ministry against me, my company, my wife, FAIR, and FAIR’s president.
The Court’s decision can be found in a PDF file here. It is 28 pages long, but basically says (as the District Court did) that UTLM has no case against any of the defendants for trademark infringement and unfair competition or cybersquatting. (These are the two issues on which UTLM decided to appeal their case.)
The wheels of justice grind slowly; it has taken just over three years to get to this point. I have no doubt that Sandra Tanner will choose to view this decision as an injustice (rather than justice) and to play the victim. It will be interesting to see how UTLM reacts to today’s decision. I can report, however, that in the Wyatt household there is much joy.
-Allen
Great news Allen.
Larry P
Allen,
I’m very glad to hear that the court sided with reason on this one. I’ve become very found of Fair and the articles found here.
Thank you for keeping us all informed and providing the court doc pdf, interesting reading.
What was the original suit over? if you can share.
nevermind I am reading the court doc.
Good for you!
Was it FAIR who put up the spoof website, or just you in your spare time? Or is there a clear distinction?
I put up the site; nobody from FAIR was involved. In fact, nobody at FAIR even knew about it until the site had been up for four months. (All that came out in discovery, and still UTLM persisted in their conspiracy theories.)
-Allen
Congratulations! I am also a FAIR fan……keep up the good work.
Boy, seems like forever. Congratulations on justice being done.
The court’s ruling was actually a really good read.
Congrats. Too bad you took the site down and transfered the domains. Sounded like fun.
The site no doubt caused a lot of legal and personal grief. But i recalled looking at it before it got taken down. It was fun to look at. But if taking down the site and transferring domains helped to end the ability of UTLM to take further legal action it had to be done.
Personally i feel Jerald and Sandra Tanners Mormonism: Shadow or Reality? needs an in depth online Wiki type review. Even a review of their smaller Major Problems in Mormonism would be a great project. All lesser Anti-Mormons seem to borrow their basic case against Mormonism. The Tanners just say a lot more on the same topics.
Spoof websites have value, but i think handling the Tanners technical arguments have more value.
Allen, I’m curious. Regardless of the final legal determination, would you do the same thing again? While I understand the legal distinctions suggested by the court, I found the original activity a little disturbing, as if you were stepping down to the level of some of the worst critics of the LDS church.
Hindsight is always 20/20. (Well, much closer to 20/20 than foresight ever seems to be.)
In hindsight I would not do it again. Not because I consider it wrong or somehow unethical; I don’t. I wouldn’t do it again because I would never want to put those I care about though the problems that the past three years have presented.
As to “stepping down” to anyone’s level, I don’t view it that way. I never claimed in my defense that I was doing a parody. I did, however, claim that I was exercising my freedom of speech to provide alternative viewpoints concerning what I consider to be lies and deceit on the part of the Tanners. It was the court who said that my site was a parody (and, in their words, a successful one) and therefore protected under the safe harbor provisions of the Lanham Act and not liable for prosecution.
That being said, I understand that some people may find parody a bit disturbing. (I find the parody and mockery published by the Salamander Society to be disturbing and sometimes offensive.) My whole point was that while the Tanners can question whether Mormonism is “shadow or reality,” the same question can be raised about their claims.
It is a pity that the Tanners thought they had to attack in a heavy-handed manner in Federal Court. It came off feeling like they were trying to silence freedom of speech when they didn’t like that freedom being exercised toward them. I’ve said all along that all they had to do was ask and the domains would have been given to them. But, they didn’t ask and instead launched into a three-year broadside that they eventually lost.
-Allen
well, at least the Tanners wasted money on lawyers instead of being able to attack the church with it (If that’s of some comfort).
Even though it was a successful fundraiser for her, it was indeed a lot of money to fund a snit rather than further her version of Christian truth.
I didn’t know about a spoof site and a lawsuit.
Sounds like a little wildness in the corridor – thanks for the news.
Somehow, I’m surprised that we haven’t heard more from Sandra’s camp. I guess I’m also surprised that we haven’t heard more from the media and also from the Dedicated Defenders of Sandra. When the District Court ruled on this last year, Nick Liturski confidently stated that the ruling would be overturned. I haven’t seen any critique of the decision or its legal ramifications. Certainly, no one has accused the judges of having an LDS bias.
I guess that means the decision is pretty much water-tight.
Lance
The court found for Allen on virtually every point and upheld a summary judgment. I felt like it was “water-tight” and then some.
Hold on there, Lance. I am certainly no “dedicated defender of Sandra.” I’ve met the woman once, very briefly. I find the religious faith espoused by the Tanners to be far less tenable than Mormonism, and I think there are far better things to devote one’s life to than interfaith battling (that goes both directions, mind you). I simply felt, and still feel, that the website in question was a juvenile stunt, better suited to middle school pranksters than adults who profess to emulate Jesus of Nazareth.
You are correct that I predicted that the district court’s decision would be overruled by the Tenth Circuit (though you can’t spell my name). I readily admit that my prediction was proven wrong. Thankfully, I don’t pretend to be a prophet. 🙂
Nick:
Sorry on two counts. One, that I can’t spell your name and two, that I gave the impression that I count you as a “dedicated defender of Sandra.” I re-read what I wrote and I note that that is the exact impression and I gave and I didn’t mean to do that because I know full well you don’t defend her.
I guess my point was that I would have liked to have seen a little more discussion on the issue, but maybe the judge’s decision is tight enough that it limits that discussion.
At any rate, I apologize for the confusion.
Lance