THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
	a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects.

To: alt.satanism
From: "Balphagor" 
Subject: Re: Baphomet pentagram creator
Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 14:19:22 -0700

I have held the actual CoS Trade Mark document in my hand for the Baphomet.
It states quite clearly that the Trade Mark is for an inverted pentagram
contained within the outline of a goats head WITH the words "The Church of
Satan" encircled around the inverted pentagram. It also states quite clearly
that this Trade Mark is NOT for the phrase "The Church of Satan" only the
artistic depiction (Logo) attached hereto. Of course anyone can sue for
anything that they see as an infringement of there rights. Average cost of a
Trade Mark, Trade Dress infringement suit, $180,000 - $220,000.00* /
Average time period pre-trial discoveries, filings, preliminary court
meetings, etc., BEFORE the case gets to trial 1.8 YEARS*  Then you have
appeals, etc...........

The CoS should want Satanic sites to display "their" Baphomet design with
pride. It's free advertising.  Now if the 700 club started using it as their
Corporate Logo, then perhaps there would be a case for concern. But since
the CoS has proclaimed themselves a religion as evidenced by their proud
display from the military 'Chaplains Handbook" on the CoS site
http://coscentral.net/cos/Pages/ChaplainsHandbook.html that the CoS is
classified as a "religion" and that the Baphomet is a symbol thereof, they
could no more enforce their Trade Mark claim to the Baphomet  than the
Vatican could or would sue someone for displaying or producing a crucifix.
As I now understand it, the CoS site is now demanding permission to display
the Baphomet on your site. I think that especially at these critical CoS
times, that is absolutely ludicrous. Where and how is permission given, how
is it enforced, who has the right to give it? I think that it is a sad turn
of events. However that is MY opinion. And this is why they will NEVER get
MY $100.00

*source USA today, article "Trade Marks and the Internet"

-Balphagor


YRabishu  wrote in message
news:19990502044457.24947.00001986@ng-fi1.aol.com...
> >most of you know that Levi created the inverted or upside down pentagram
> >and the baphomet pentagram but this is a real good history on "Anton
> >Lavey's copyrighted?" pentagram which was in fact created by Levi.
> >"http://intranet.ca/~magicworks/knights/sigil.html"
> >
> >warmest wishes
> >Don Hyde
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>    Since most of TSB is indeed plagarised, CoS's "copyright" in more or
less
> invalid. The only thing protecting them is the money at Avon, once Avon
rulls
> under (if they ever do) CoS wont be able to do jack



Path: ultra.sonic.net!nntp.dnai.com!pao.uu.net!nyc.uu.net!uunet!ams.uu.net!newsfeed.amsterdam.nl.net!sun4nl!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!newspeer1.nac.net!nntp1!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Baphomet pentagram creator
From: harwer@ultinet.SPAMKILLA.net (Kevin Filan)
Reply-To: harwer@ultinet.net
Organization: Harwer's Hangout and House o' Flames
X-Newsreader: WinVN 0.99.9 (Released Version) (x86 32bit)
References: <18204-372BB3CD-72@newsd-251.iap.bryant.webtv.net> <19990502044457.24947.00001986@ng-fi1.aol.com> 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=US-ASCII
Lines: 106
Message-ID: 
Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 22:51:14 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.99.47.127
X-Complaints-To: news@nac.net
X-Trace: nntp1 925685474 207.99.47.127 (Sun, 02 May 1999 18:51:14 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 02 May 1999 18:51:14 EDT
Xref: ultra.sonic.net alt.satanism:114134

In article , Balphagor@gaytimes.com 
says...
>
>I have held the actual CoS Trade Mark document in my hand for the Baphomet.
>It states quite clearly that the Trade Mark is for an inverted pentagram
>contained within the outline of a goats head WITH the words "The Church of
>Satan" encircled around the inverted pentagram. It also states quite clearly
>that this Trade Mark is NOT for the phrase "The Church of Satan" only the
>artistic depiction (Logo) attached hereto.

Which nobody is disputing.  

However, since Egan's site combines a Baphomet logo with the words
"First Church of Satan," it WOULD be considered a violation of trademark.

>                                        Of course anyone can sue for
>anything that they see as an infringement of there rights. Average cost of a
>Trade Mark, Trade Dress infringement suit, $180,000 - $220,000.00* /

OTOH, a simple note to tripod.com (which is being drawn up)
can result in most of the material being pulled off with no
muss and no fuss.  (Getting a domain name revoked is a bit more
involved, but not much more... and rest assured that Internic has
received the paperwork they asked for).

>Average time period pre-trial discoveries, filings, preliminary court
>meetings, etc., BEFORE the case gets to trial 1.8 YEARS*  Then you have
>appeals, etc...........

Which is irrelevant to the situation at hand: like I said,
getting a server to pull off a scamsite is far easier than
an involved trademark infringement suit.


>The CoS should want Satanic sites to display "their" Baphomet design with
>pride. It's free advertising.

Depends on which Satanic sites you're talking about.  I'm
not sure I want the Baphomet stuck on the HEIL SATAN HEIL
HITLER HOMEPAGE... or the DEATH METAL SATIN WORSHIP SITE.

>                       Now if the 700 club started using it as their
>Corporate Logo, then perhaps there would be a case for concern.

Interesting you should raise that point: Egan 
uses the name "churchofsatan.org" to disseminate
anti-LaVey and anti-CoS information.  This is very
similar to the behavior of an anti-abortion group
who registered "plannedparenthood.org" ... and soon
found themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

> But since
>the CoS has proclaimed themselves a religion as evidenced by their proud
>display from the military 'Chaplains Handbook" on the CoS site
>http://coscentral.net/cos/Pages/ChaplainsHandbook.html that the CoS is
>classified as a "religion" and that the Baphomet is a symbol thereof, they
>could no more enforce their Trade Mark claim to the Baphomet  than the
>Vatican could or would sue someone for displaying or producing a crucifix.

Religious organizations can't sue for copyright 
infringement? I'll bet you there are going to be
a lot of folks on alt.religon.scientology breathing
a WHOLE lot easier.

Thank you, Attorney Doofus.  You may step down now.

>As I now understand it, the CoS site is now demanding permission to display
>the Baphomet on your site.  I think that especially at these critical CoS
>times, that is absolutely ludicrous. Where and how is permission given, how
>is it enforced, who has the right to give it?

Where and how is permission given?

Usually a polite "Hey, mind if I use this symbol/.jpeg/article
on my site?" directed to nadramia@panix.com will work for getting
permission.

How is it enforced?

Polite letters, letters to system administrators, letters
from attorneys, not necessarily in that order.

Who has the right to give it?

If you send the request to nadramia@panix.com, you'll get 
permission from someone authorized to give it.

>     I think that it is a sad turn
>of events. However that is MY opinion. And this is why they will NEVER get
>MY $100.00

That and you don't have it.


Peace
Kevin Filan
-- 
Kevin Filan     http://www.ultinet.net/~harwer     harwer@ultinet.net
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
        "The World's Smallest Systems Administrator"
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
KEVIN FILAN (a/k/a Kevin Pedofilan): Avowed Satanist (according to 
his web page) and ultra-right-winger who harasses people because 
(surprise!) they dare to disagree with him - Tim "Skidmark" Brown,
(mailto: bandit@iglou.com) at http://members.iglou.com/bandit