EU TM case, 2010-2014

This is the court case in which the European trademark registered by Osho International Foundation, Switzerland (OIF) was challenged, and in which OIF's lawyer Niren introduced what he represented as Osho's will to the world.

In the event, OIF won the case without the alleged will being a factor, but it remains as a thorn in the side for many sannyasins, though OIF has not tried to use it since. This page goes into the EU TM case in some detail, focusing for now on the alleged will and the affidavits. Most of the material for this page derives from Usho Uta's site regarding this case.

Last Will of Osho

The following is a reproduction of most of page 11 of Lotus' 14-page final submission in the case. It is the only material in that submission that addresses the alleged will. An attempt has been made here to reproduce roughly its layout and general appearance, and a few repairs have been made to syntax.

[In] Para. 24 of the "Second Supplemental Witness Statement", a Last Will of Osho of 15 October 1989 is addressed by Mr. Toelkes [and] alleged to be an indication that Osho intended to transfer any and all property he had to the [Trademark] Owner. However, -- the document is addressing ownership, publishing and related rights to all his work, which could conceivably include copyrights (depending on what Osho owned at his death) but not trademark rights and -- undisputedly, Osho did not have any trademark Osho" and -- as admitted by Mr. Toelkes -- he never used his name as a trademark. Accordingly, there was nothing to transfer with respect to his name, which explains why it is not addressed in the "last will and testament". Interestingly, this last will of 15 October 1989 -- has never shown up before, neither in this proceeding, nor -- according to the statement of Mrs. Duchane enclosed as Exhibit A 83 - in the US proceedings regarding the cancellation of the US trademarks (see page 5, para 8), in which -- as Mrs. Duchane points out -- the TM Owner already insisted that Osho had never owned or used a trademark "OSHO" (see page 4, para 2 and page 5, para 7) and in which the TM Owner could already not produce sufficient documents (see page 4, para 5 of this Exhibit); -- would have been made only one day before the "Osho Times" published the totally opposite understanding of Osho's wishes that his name not be a trademark, but used descriptively by his "people", namely the quote addressed above as Exhibit A 81. Independent from the question of whether the last will is valid, it is, in the end, not relevant for this proceeding. As said, the question whether Osho's name qualifies for registration as a CTM [(Community TM}] does not depend on Osho's will.

In the event, the court's decision did not refer to the alleged will, so an opportunity to question its veracity slipped by ...

the Affidavits

An amazing feature of Lotus' side of the case was a round-up over thirty sworn statements (affidavits) from long-time sannyasins attesting, as was said on the main fake will page, "to the formerly free, easy and loose use of Osho's name, the antithesis of trademarking, a use centered on respect and love as opposed to branding and business". One might think that this alone might have been enough to determine the outcome of the case, but it wasn't, as it turned out.

Uta's site lists 31 of them, with links to their complete statements, and says there were more, but not all wanted to have their statements posted on the net. All the statements are in English, with several having other-language versions as well. They were from:

Adheera, Maria Westerman Anahato, Uwe Messerschmitt-Breitbach Aneesha, Laura Ross Anubuddha, Ronald Lee Modic Avikal, Emilio Costantino Chirantan, Barbara Land Devakirti, Wilko Iedema Devapath, Jochen Peters Divyam, Johanna Kranenburg Hiro, Anke Autzen

Khoji, Timothy Michael Green Kutera, Gerardina Kurvers Laya, Elfi Rose Hauser Leela, Lydia Itzler Manish, Jean-Henri Simon Nirad, Hubertina Verbeek-Heemskerk Navanita, Sharyn Harris Omkaranand, Pieter Dingjan Parigyana, Hans Bogers Parijato, Wolfgang Hardt

Puja, Christiane Sturm Rafia, John Morgan Ramateertha, Robert Doetsch Rani, Birgit Willems Samarona, Ronald Buunk Shunyam, Peter Schaden Siddhartha, Mattheus van Langen Turiya, Lena Marie Hanover Vasubandhu, Paul Henri Macquoy Vasumati, Sharon Hancock Veetman, Ulrich Masshoefer

One item that was mentioned again and again by those who offered their statements was a so-called Letter of Understanding. This was a document sent to leaders of all the Osho meditation centers in the world in 1998, Osho Institutes,and many Osho therapists and group-leaders. The wiki does not have a record of the text of that doc. If you have one lying around in a drawer somewhere, please scan it and send to one of the wiki editing team.