EU TM case, 2010-2014: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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 [[Sw Prem Niren|Niren]] introduced what he represented as [[Osho's fake will|Osho's will]] to the world. The court hearing this case was in Alicante, in Spain, at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). | 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 [[Sw Prem Niren|Niren]] introduced what he represented as [[Osho's fake will|Osho's will]] to the world. The court hearing this case was in Alicante, in Spain, at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM). | ||
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 [http://www.osho.de/trademark-osho/ | 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 [http://www.osho.de/trademark-osho/ Osho Uta's site] regarding this case. | ||
===Last Will of Osho=== | ===Last Will of Osho=== |
Revision as of 16:21, 1 September 2021
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. The court hearing this case was in Alicante, in Spain, at the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).
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 Osho 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,
Interestingly, this last will of 15 October 1989
Exhibit A 83 -
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 |
Letter of Understanding
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.
Harassment
Following is a reproduction of some pages from Lotus' 14-page final submission in the case (bottom of p11 to the top of p14). An attempt has been made here to reproduce roughly its layout and general appearance, and a few repairs have been made to syntax.
In the CTM Owner's letter to the OHIM of 15 January 2013 in response to official letter of 6 November 2012, the CTM owner's representative asked for an opportunity to respond to the submissions of the Applicant received by the OHIM. One reason was that the CTM owner alleged that it
However, the CTM Owner's subsequent submission of 7 June 2013 does not contain a single sample of such alleged "statements and evidence from those approached and harassed by the Applicant”. Obviously, there are no respective statements and evidence, and the reason is that said approaches and harassments have actually never happened. Even worse, it is rather the CTM Owner who has started to harass persons who have signed affidavits in favor of the Applicant by filing "Trademark Complaints" with YouTube and Facebook to get videos posted on YouTube shut down and to get accounts closed which Osho therapists had opened with Facebook.
Exhibit A 84,
Exhibit A 85.
Exhibit A 86.
Exhibit A 87.
Further, the CTM Owner has been starting to send cease and desist letters to those who had made statements in this proceeding which supported the position of the Applicant, e.g. to Mr. Masshöfer of the Institute for Living and Dying, see Exhibit A 88,
only because he had stated (Exhibit A 54 l):
even though he is no longer using Osho's name at all, and to Mrs. DeLong, see Exhibit A 89,
only because she had stated (Exhibit A 54 m):
It is interesting to see that these attacks were made only against centers and people who had made statements in the proceeding supporting the argumentation of the Applicant. |