EU TM case, 2010-2014

From The Sannyas Wiki
Revision as of 16:32, 1 September 2021 by Rudra (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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,

-- 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

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
"has recently been contacted by several third parties who operate OSHO centers. They have all stated that they have been approached by the Applicant for invalidity who has repeatedly asked them to sign pre-prepared witness statements to the point of insisting and harassing each potential witness. We understand that false information was provided by the applicant in an attempt to obtain the signature of the witnesses and that many were not aware of the full facts of the case. ...
We have therefore collated statements and evidence from those approached and harassed by the applicant and will heavily provide the people him with this and the next round of submissions."

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.

For example, all of a sudden the Facebook site of the "Diamond Breath Festival" was contested and taken down upon the CTM Owner's initiative,
Exhibit A 84,
because -- as the Owner states in its e-mail of 4 June 2013 -- "the Diamond Breath people are working closely with Mr. Doetsch in a coordinated attack on the trademark and OIF". As the Office knows, it is simply untrue that "Devapath and Dwari (note: Mr. Jochen Peters and Mrs. Marita Deutsch] have joined the legal case against OIF" as nobody has joined the Applicant in this proceeding. The only thing Mr. Jochen Peters and Mrs. Marita Deutsch did was to explain in a declaration (Exhibit A 54 a and i)) that
"nobody ever objected personally to me in my way to use the name "Osho" and the use of the name was not restricted for me in any way. In the same way, it is clear in my perception that Osho never wanted to exercise control over the centres but gave clear guidance for centres how to facilitate his meditations and therapies. It was up to me how I would implement them but the use of Osho's name would indicate the character of the meditations and therapies, namely they were meditations and therapies inspired by and reflecting Osho's vision and teachings"
and
"When I got asked in 1998 to sign a so called 'Letter of Understanding' about the copyright for Osho's books as well as the protection of his name, I felt no need to sign it as all the years before with each centre [or] institute I created or I was involved in organizing, there has never been any demand of legal bonding or contracts. ... As far as I know, Osho never wanted his name to be trademarked."
A video of Osho Diamond Breath Training has been removed on 10 April 2013 from the YouTube platform,
Exhibit A 85.
Likewise, the Facebook page of Osho Uta Institut has been closed down without any warning or possibility to comment on the "complaint" raised by the owner over against Facebook,
Exhibit A 86.
The same happened to the Facebook page of Osho Pulsation. It was closed down without any warning or possibility to comment on the "complaint" raised by the owner over against Facebook, and for the reason that
"Ms. Dillon is part of a legal action (Osho Lotus e.V. represented by Robert Doetsch) against OSHO International Foundation in the context of an attempt to cancel of one of our trademark registrations for OSHO in Europe.",
see
Exhibit A 87.
As the Office knows, it is simply untrue that Ms. Dillon (whose full legal name is Laura Dillon Ross and whose pen name is Aneesha Dillon) is part of this proceeding. The only thing Ms. Dillon did was to explain in a declaration (Exhibit A 54 w) that
"Since 1989 I have called my work Osho Pulsation, and continue to do so to this day. This is because Osho's vision has been an inspiration for my work and his meditations are an integral component of the groups I lead all over the world. ...
I only started hearing about the idea of his name being trade-marked shortly before the year 2000. No one at OIF has ever mentioned anything to me about the use of 'Osho' in the title of my work, and it was always something I did as a way of indicating a certain quality of my work in association with Osho. In all these years I never signed, nor was I asked to sign any guidelines or Letter of Understanding agreeing to anything related to the use of the name Osho. The participants in my groups around the world have no idea of any of the political efforts of OIF or anyone else to regulate or licence the name 'Osho'. The way they understand my connection with Osho and my use of his name in my work is that he remains an inspiration, that I feel tremendous gratitude to him for what he has given and helped me understand about life. Using his name lets people know that there is a certain flavor, a certain fragrance that can be expected when they come to work with me, and that is Osho."

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):

"I used the name Osho only to describe the content of my groups, especially the aspects of meditation and human growth in consciousness, and the spiritual inspiration of an important and internationally acclaimed spiritual teacher. I used the name Osho in an independent way, and have not signed any legal agreement, guidelines [or] letters of understanding. It means simply that I have not used the name Osho as a trademark. In my seminar descriptions, I have never used the Copyright-Symbol with the name Osho or the group titles"

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):

"The name "Osho" as part of the institute title represents for me a quality that I feel inside myself when I remember him, a 'oneness' or synchronicity between my inner being and his, ... For me, this quality is beyond the domains of trademark. During the period when I was responsible for the Osho Institute for Spiritual Healing, I was not asked to sign any guidelines nor any licensing agreement (Letter of Understanding). The pressure from Osho Foundation International [to] sign such things came later, after my interest had already changed to another area. ... In my groups, I speak about Osho continually. as he is the source of my spiritual inspiration. I don't think any participant gets the idea that his name is the name of a 'product', nor have they heard that the name is trademarked."

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.