Lucasfilm Sues ‘Lightsaber Academy’ and ‘Jedi Club’ Over Trademark Infringement

https://torrentfreak.com/lucasfilm-sues-lightsaber-academy-and-jedi-club-over-trademark-infringement-161017/

https://consumerist.com/2016/10/17/lucasfilm-sues-operator-of-new-york-jedi-lightsaber-academy-programs/

Anticipating a most likely question; The Order has never attempted to contact LucasFilm and has never been contacted by LucasFilm.

I saw this earlier! Thank you for sharing it on my Facebook, I can't post until 5 tomorrow- one of my pictures got flagged by Facebook. lol.

This is a very difficult time for us. I'd like to say that we could probably get away with this because they have not copyrighted the term for religious education purposes. That's mostly how we've been able to keep ourselves from freaking out over whether or not Lucas would end up getting over the top.

What happens will be interesting. But as I've said in the past, I don't hold the copyright to the term "Force Realist", I've toyed the idea of copyrighting it for the explicit purpose of allowing all to use it without a corporate entity breathing down our backs over it and so they can't take it from anyone (though I've been using it for so long, I'm -pretty- sure, at this point, they couldn't very well get away with taking it from us). And I still stand by the idea that we can latterly move over to it in the event of a legal issue arising from our use of the term. Dividing the schools into "Light", "Dark" and "Shadow" across the board.

Alethea Thompson wrote: This is a very difficult time for us. I'd like to say that we could probably get away with this because they have not copyrighted the term for religious education purposes. That's mostly how we've been able to keep ourselves from freaking out over whether or not Lucas would end up getting over the top.

(n.b., terms are trademarked, not copyright protected.)

Have they trademarked it for lightsaber choreography classes outside their filming sessions? Because if they haven't, then we fall under the same kind of general umbrella. Especially since we use a trademarked term to promote ourselves.

I'm interested to see how this shakes out.

The word 'Jedi' is trademarked. But a trademark has to be for specific purpose or purposes. Jedi is not registered for religious services. We are not infringing on anyone's trademark. The only way that to prove that or to be certain beyond a shadow of a doubt would be for us to get sued by LucasFilms and for us to win. Otherwise there's always some doubt.

THANK YOU JESUS has a trademark. Look at the specifics.

Word Mark THANK YOU JESUS
Goods and Services IC 014. US 002 027 028 050. G & S: Jewelry, namely, bracelets, necklaces, earrings and key chains. FIRST USE: 20110331. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110331
IC 021. US 002 013 023 029 030 033 040 050. G & S: housewares, namely, coffee mugs, mugs, ceramic bowls, plates, vases and pots, trays for domestic purpose, serving platters, piggy banks. FIRST USE: 20110331. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20110331

Standard Characters Claimed
Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
Serial Number 87084645
Filing Date June 27, 2016
Current Basis 1A
Original Filing Basis 1A
Owner (APPLICANT) Sharon Lynn Campbell, LLC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VIRGINIA 4390 Shelby Road Rochelle VIRGINIA 22738
Attorney of Record Sheldon H. Parker
Type of Mark TRADEMARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

LucasFilms has four trademarks on 'Jedi'. If anyone finds anything about religious purposes, real non fiction philosophical purposes, a church or ministry or religious services please let me know. If someone wanted to write a book on the impact of Star Wars on society they certainly could and they could use the words Star Wars in the title and or Jedi. People have done so - legally. The rights to the use of the word are not absolute or for every conceivable reason by a long shot.

If you read through all this (I've bolded the purposes so they stand out) you'll see why we cannot sell many items with the word Jedi on them though.

Here are all the registered purposes:

http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:et1hhq.4.9
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:et1hhq.4.11
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:et1hhq.4.12
http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4809:et1hhq.4.13

Word Mark JEDI
Goods and Services IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Children's activity books; novels for adults; [ book covers; ] book marks; books containing puzzles and games; books featuring photographs; books for role-playing; children's books; [ children's books combined with toys and sold as a unit; ] children's story books; coffee table books; comic books; comic magazines; [ printed instructional manuals and strategy guides in the field of computer games and science fiction;] juvenile books featuring science fiction; magazines in the field of science fiction entertainment; novels for juveniles; posters; puzzle books; read-along children's books; series of fiction books; sticker albums; sticker books; stickers; story books; temporary tattoos; trading cards; art prints; animation cels; collectible trading cards; lithographic prints. original works of art created from paper, photographic prints; printed art reproductions; posters featuring printed replicas of characters from movies. FIRST USE: 19931000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19931000
IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing, namely, caps; children's footwear; [ coats; ] costume accessories, namely, headwear and belts; [ crop tops; dresses;] fitness tops; footwear;[ gloves;] hats; head wear; jackets; knit caps; masquerade costumes and masks sold in connection therewith; pajamas; shirts; sleepwear; slippers; sweatshirts; T-shirts; underwear[ ; visors ]. FIRST USE: 20050500. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20050500

Word Mark JEDI
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: interactive entertainment software, namely, interactive video game programs and interactive multimedia computer game programs; and compact discs and CD-ROMs featuring science fiction games and music. FIRST USE: 20020319. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20020319

Word Mark JEDI
Goods and Services IC 028. US 022 023 038 050. G & S: [ Balloons, card games, skateboards, ] toy action figures and role-playing toys. FIRST USE: 19990531. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990531

Word Mark JEDI
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: Entertainment services, namely, providing audiovisual entertainment in the field of science fiction via a global computer network or other electronic computer networks; providing news and information programming in the field of education, entertainment, entertainment relating to motion picture films, television shows and computer games via a global computer information network and other electronic computer networks. FIRST USE: 20030627. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20030627

If none of us, singly or as a group, nor the Temple as an entity, attempts (whether with any success or not) to make any monies for *whatever* purpose, but with any connection to the term "Jedi", then we've not overstepped any bounds, right? I mean, no-one can (legally... or hey, even morally) sue me use for my calling myself a "Jedi", unless, doing so had in some way directly harmed or hindered any generating of revenues by the holders of the copyright/trademark, or caused any defamatory damage. Am I wrong?

I *think*, so long as we keep our noses clean, never try to make a buck off the term "Jedi", directly, indirectly, or even by any vague association, it seems we'd be forever in the clear...

Thank you for the correction, Steam

Terran, that's not exactly accurate. Back in the 90s or earlier this century, Lucas sued a guy for posting Star Wars merchandise reviews on the guy's personal webpage. He wasn't making money doing it, he just wanted to share his hobby with people. Lucas won the case.

Was it wrong? Yes, and frankly I don't know why he did it- free publicity is free publicity. But he did .

Tarran wrote: If none of us, singly or as a group, nor the Temple as an entity, attempts (whether with any success or not) to make any monies for *whatever* purpose, but with any connection to the term "Jedi", then we've not overstepped any bounds, right? I mean, no-one can (legally... or hey, even morally) sue me use for my calling myself a "Jedi", unless, doing so had in some way directly harmed or hindered any generating of revenues by the holders of the copyright/trademark, or caused any defamatory damage. Am I wrong?

I *think*, so long as we keep our noses clean, never try to make a buck off the term "Jedi", directly, indirectly, or even by any vague association, it seems we'd be forever in the clear...

The only accurate answer is this and it's as short as possible. If we are not doing any of these things with the term Jedi we are not infringing.

Children's activity books; novels for adults; [ book covers; ] book marks; books containing puzzles and games; books featuring photographs; books for role-playing; children's books; [ children's books combined with toys and sold as a unit; ] children's story books; coffee table books; comic books; comic magazines; [ printed instructional manuals and strategy guides in the field of computer games and science fiction;] juvenile books featuring science fiction; magazines in the field of science fiction entertainment; novels for juveniles; posters; puzzle books; read-along children's books; series of fiction books; sticker albums; sticker books; stickers; story books; temporary tattoos; trading cards; art prints; animation cels; collectible trading cards; lithographic prints. original works of art created from paper, photographic prints; printed art reproductions; posters featuring printed replicas of characters from movies.

Clothing, namely, caps; children's footwear; [ coats; ] costume accessories, namely, headwear and belts; [ crop tops; dresses;] fitness tops; footwear;[ gloves;] hats; head wear; jackets; knit caps; masquerade costumes and masks sold in connection therewith; pajamas; shirts; sleepwear; slippers; sweatshirts; T-shirts; underwear[ ; visors ].

[ Balloons, card games, skateboards, ] toy action figures and role-playing toys.

Entertainment services, namely, providing audiovisual entertainment in the field of science fiction via a global computer network or other electronic computer networks; providing news and information programming in the field of education, entertainment, entertainment relating to motion picture films, television shows and computer games via a global computer information network and other electronic computer networks.

Alethea Thompson wrote: Terran, that's not exactly accurate. Back in the 90s or earlier this century, Lucas sued a guy for posting Star Wars merchandise reviews on the guy's personal webpage. He wasn't making money doing it, he just wanted to share his hobby with people. Lucas won the case.

I really hope you forgive this, because I'm certain it's a simple oversight... but just out of fear of it sticking (as such has actually happened to me irl offline), I should first clear up my name - not "Terran", as in "Earthling", but Tarran, as in the name from the Welsh, Celtic and Old Norse. No stress... I realize this makes me look fanatically nitpicky, and I'm sure it was probably an autocorrect thing, but again... only out of fear of it sticking (please do forgive me) LOL

Anyway, I can see how that suit would have held... as far as how laws reach and sprawl through things internet-ish - their beef was quite most likely that he was using the pull of "StarWars-ness" to draw traffic to his site. To whatever extent that may or may not have been actually factual in deed, that would be how they'd term things to be able to hold in court. It's kind of like how there's still an old law in Massachusetts outlawing black magic, and people have gotten harassed due to it... though, while "using spells" wouldn't hold up in court, or in a police report, "psychological hazing" does. It's all in how you present things.

Now, to anyone out there, am I correct in assuming this? That... while rights are reserved by Lucasfilm Ltd. for the term "Jedi", I would think it not necessarily so for the term "Jediism" - though still, never making a buck (or other prosperity) off the term Jediism would still, for many obvious reasons, be nonetheless prudent lol

Yes? Any data/thoughts on this?

Alethea Thompson wrote: Thank you for the correction, Steam

Terran, that's not exactly accurate. Back in the 90s or earlier this century, Lucas sued a guy for posting Star Wars merchandise reviews on the guy's personal webpage. He wasn't making money doing it, he just wanted to share his hobby with people. Lucas won the case.

Was it wrong? Yes, and frankly I don't know why he did it- free publicity is free publicity. But he did .

Please post the citation of the lawsuit if possible. I'd like to research that.