NOTICE: Omega Countdown Ministries Will Not be Able to Operate Much Longer

Click to go to our Home Page

Dear Reader,

Due to the following recent trademark developments, Omega Countdown Ministries, may not be operating much longer. “Nothing would be allowed to stand in the way of the new movement.” E.G. White, 1SM, 205.

We want to thank our supporters over the years. You had best copy anything from this site that you wish to preserve because we will most likely be closed down imminently.

God bless all and I hope to see you in the kingdom,

Ron Beaulieu

From this point on, I cite what I have received this a.m., Sabbath, Aug. 11, 2007: Ron B.

*******

Hello friends,

I would like to thank all who sent me comments and confirmation concerning the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventist's trademark of the name Ellen G. White. It is eye-opening to those with discernment, and should be taken very seriously.

I received some letters telling me that it is no big deal, and asking why there is such a concern. The argument being made that the 'church' has every right to protect its property. Such a view really speaks to the true condition of the membership of the SDA church doesn't it? Is it really a church or is it a business? If a church, why trademark?

Too many are blindly following the world's view in such matters. Businesses use trademarks and the 'church' has 'traded' it's mission and calling for that of pursuing the filthy lucre of big business! Think about it for a moment… having a monopoly is the summit of capitalism. Not to mention having complete control over the supply to 'customers', I mean church members, is
a bonus! How better can the 'church' silence those who 'sigh and cry' for all] the abominations that exist in the 'church' then to remove them from membership and remove their ability to use the words of God's inspired prophet to the remnant? Why was the 'church' sent a prophet anyway? Was it not to help guide it into the kingdom of God? The GC has turned the writings of God's prophet into their own 'profit.' Is this something that God would
really endorse and sanction? Hardly. Only God is King. Men who exhibit a kingly power have traded the headship of Christ for their own. Their spirit is from the 'prince of darkness.' Beware and shudder my friends for there was another time when the same dark spirit influenced the 'church' to take away God's holy scriptures to "protect them" from those who were sighing
and crying for all her sins. And to go to a branch of the United nations to enforce one's religious beliefs and "rights" really shows an ecumenical alliance to the new world order… wouldn't you say?? Is this what the 'church ' is to be doing or is it to be exposing such godless entities as described in the three angels messages?

Those interested in the trademark documentation can go here:
http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/index_tm.html, click the 'search' and 'New User Form Search' links and type "Ellen G. White" (with quotation marks) into the Search Term box.

Here is what you will find listed on the page (I highlighted some areas):

Word Mark:         ELLEN G. WHITE

Services:   IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: RELIGIOUS AND HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS, NAMELY, BOOKS, WRITINGS, ARTICLES, PERIODICALS,
MANUSCRIPTS, LETTERS, DIARIES, TRACTS, ENCYCLOPEDIAS, REFERENCE MATERIALS
AND PAMPHLETS WRITTEN BY OR ABOUT ELLEN G. WHITE AND/OR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST ORIGIN AND HISTORY. FIRST USE: 19760701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19760701

IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: RETAIL STORE SERVICES VIA A GLOBAL COMPUTER NETWORK FEATURING BOOKS, WRITINGS, ARTICLES, PERIODICALS, MANUSCRIPTS, LETTERS, DIARIES, TRACTS, ENCYCLOPEDIAS, REFERENCE MATERIALS AND PAMPHLETS WRITTEN BY OR ABOUT ELLEN G. WHITE AND/OR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST ORIGIN ND HISTORY. FIRST USE: 19950801. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19950801 IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: RELIGIOUS, LITERARY AND HISTORICAL LIBRARY SERVICES; EDUCATION DRIVEN ELECTRONIC RESEARCH SERVICES FEATURING BOOKS, WRITINGS, ARTICLES, PERIODICALS, MANUSCRIPTS, LETTERS, DIARIES, TRACTS, ENCYCLOPEDIAS, REFERENCE MATERIALS AND PAMPHLETS WRITTEN BY OR ABOUT ELLEN G. WHITE AND/OR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST ORIGIN AND HISTORY; ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING SERVICES, NAMELY, PUBLICATION OF BOOKS, WRITINGS, ARTICLES, PERIODICALS, MANUSCRIPTS, LETTERS, DIARIES, TRACTS, ENCYCLOPEDIAS, REFERENCE MATERIALS AND PAMPHLETS WRITTEN BY OR ABOUT ELLEN G. WHITE AND/OR SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST ORIGIN AND HISTORY. FIRST USE: 19760701. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19760701

IC 042. US 100 101. G & S: RESEARCH SERVICES IN THE AREAS OF RELIGION, LITERATURE AND HISTORY; AND PRINTING. FIRST USE: 19760701. FIRST USE IN
COMMERCE: 19760701

Mark Drawing Code               (1) TYPED DRAWING
Design Search Code
Serial Number                        76176282
Filing Date                              December 6, 2000
Current Filing Basis               1A
Original Filing Basis               1A
Published for Opposition      June 25, 2002
Registration Number             2620036
Registration Date                   September 17, 2002
Owner                           (REGISTRANT) Ellen G. White Estate, Inc.
CORPORATION D.C. 12501 Old Columbia Pike Silver Spring MARYLAND 20904
Attorney of Record                Vincent L Ramik
Prior Registrations                 1342547
Type of Mark                          TRADEMARK. SERVICE MARK
Register                                  PRINCIPAL
Other Data                              The mark "Ellen G. White" does not
identify a living individual.
Live/Dead Indicator               LIVE

They filed for trademark in December of 2000, which was approximately seven months after the court in Miami ruled in favor of the GC in the Perez case concerning the 'Seventh-day Adventist', 'Adventist,' and 'SDA' trademarks. Concerning the 'Published for Opposition' date of 2002, it is my
understanding that other groups have five years to oppose a trademark. It appears that the five years are over in this case. BTW, in case you didn't catch it, the attorney of record (Vincent L. Ramik) is the same attorney that chaired the Perez case in Miami!!

The brother who originally called me about this issue also informed me that he and a group of others had a meeting with a trademark lawyer about this very topic. The lawyer explained about the process and informed them that even though someone were to challenge the GC trademark, the GC had the means to bury them in paperwork for years and years. He produced a document that showed that the GC is worth billions of dollars—something that stunned the participants! I wonder how many church members realize the true wealth of the GC? And how did they come to such wealth? Honestly? I really would like
to see this documentation!

It is also interesting to note that the letters "EGW" were trademarked by the GC in 1985! So step by step we can see a pattern developing.

In case you are still missing the point let me share a quote from a letter I received: "This trademark thing is so bad that even to quote her name in a sermon would make one liable for lawsuit!! They want to wrest the writings of the prophet out of the hands of the faithful just like Rome wrested the Bible from the people in the past."

Do you not find it the least bit shocking that the 'church' will not speak the truth in evangelistic meetings concerning the church of Rome and it's strong arm tactics of coercion, but yet will use the same tactics to go after anyone calling themselves a Seventh-day Adventist that does? Do you not find it the least bit stunning that the 'church' will not adhere to the counsel given to the remnant by God's end-time prophet, but will use worldly principles to ensure that these same counsels are removed from the hands of those who not only heed but teach the them to all? Just what is the
'church' really afraid of? Righteousness?

Now is not the time to retreat my friends or give up completely. Now more than ever we must stand up and be counted on the Lord's side. It reminds me of something Ellen White said… it was early in December, 1914 that Ellen White testified to hearing voices in the night season, crying out: "Advance! Advance! Advance! Press the battle to the gate!"

I leave you to take up the banner and advance! Advance to the gate!

Blessings,

Joel Laswell          jlaswell@eternaltruthministries.org.

PS I am told that those interested in having a transcript of the trademark trial between the GC and Perez can acquire it from Harvestime Books: 931-692-2777

Hello fellow saints,

I received a disturbing call from a fellow Adventist brother this afternoon informing me that WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization)—a branch of the United Nations—has just given the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists the trademark property right to the name 'Ellen G. White,' along with various other forms of the name. I have gone to the WIPO
site and cannot confirm this to be accurate as yet, though I have no reason to doubt the testimony of this particular brother. He is in the mix of GC trademark issues and has great integrity. But still, it is not yet confirmed, but it is food for thought!

I would appreciate confirmation if any of you have it. When/if I receive confirmation I will be sure to share it with you. It may be that the WIPO site has not yet been updated, or the brother may just be mistaken—though I would not doubt the GC doing this. Why? During the trademark trial of Raphael Perez in Miami back in 2000**, the representatives of the GC stated in court that only the Seventh-day Adventist Church has the rights to the
writings of Ellen G. White—to the astonishment of the gallery (of which I was a member). They basically said that no one else can use her writings or print them unless they are a Seventh-day Adventist… in context this means a member of the denomination. Sounds outrageous doesn't it? YES!! But they said it and it appears that they are taking steps to ensure it!

I lost the transcript of the Miami trial when my computer crashed several years ago and have been trying to get another copy of it since, to no avail. I have written to the court clerk in Miami, and also to the lawyer that defended Raphael, but have yet to receive a response from either. If any of you have a copy of the transcript of the trial I would be very interested in obtaining a copy.

Some may ask 'why is the GC going to the UN (WIPO) for a trademark judgment? ' Well, why are they trade marking at all?!! Considering that US trademark laws only pertain to the US, it makes sense to get a judgment from a world body that can have teeth with all member countries, doesn't it? This is the route the GC is taking now as they continue bringing trademark lawsuits
against those who use the name Seventh-day Adventist, Adventist, and SDA (and usually some other variations too). And you thought they stopped in 2000 with Raphael Perez?? Hardly! Take for example the lawsuit filed against Walter 'Chic' McGill in 2006 who resides in Tennessee. His church's name
is: Creation 7th Day Adventist Church.

The GC went to WIPO to file a trademark complaint against McGill and his church and here is the link:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0642.html

I met Chic at the Raphael trademark trial in Miami back in 2000. Isn't it interesting that he was at Raphael's trial and now he is in the same circumstances, yet from WIPO? By the way, WIPO is not located in the United States but in Geneva! So one would have to travel to Geneva to defend themselves and how many home churches have the financial backing to do that effectively? Keep brother McGill and the members of his church in Tennessee in your prayers for the outcome effects everyone, whether its recognized or not.

The same brother who called me told me that the GC recently filed a new trademark lawsuit against a Rabbi in California who has a Messianic Jewish Adventist congregation! I guess his wife is a fourth generation Seventh-day Adventist who is a bit stunned by her brethren!

My friends, seriously consider this: Would God's true church do such things?

Pray and watch my friends, pray and work, for darkness is coming quickly when no one can work.

Blessings,

Joel

**I will be re-editing the video I helped produce with Paul Vogt back in 2000 concerning the trademark trial of Raphael Perez entitled 'God on Trial.' I will make an announcement when it is finished and anyone interested can request a copy—a donation would be very nice (but not required).

WIPO

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists v. Walter McGill, dba Creation 7th Day Adventist Church, Creation (7th Day Adventist) Ministries, Creation Ministries and Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, Creation 7^th Day Adventist Church

Case No. D2006-0642

1. The Parties

Complainant is the General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists (“Complainant”), a corporation established by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists under the laws of the District of Columbia located at , Silver Spring, Maryland, United States of America, represented by Diller, Ramik & Wight, Annandale, Virginia, United States of America.

Respondent is Walter McGill dba Creation 7th Day Adventist Church, Creation (7th Day Adventist) Ministries, Creation Ministries and Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church, Creation 7^th Day Adventist Church (“Respondent”) located at Guys, Tennessee, United States of America.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The domain names at issue are <7th-day-adventist.org>, <creation-7th-day-adventist-church.org>, <creationseventhdayadventistchurch.org>, <creationsda.org> (the “Domain Names”).

The registrar is Blue Razor Domains, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

On May 23, 2006, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) received a copy of the Complaint of Complainant via email. On May 27, 2006, the Center sent an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Complaint to Complainant. The Complainant paid the required fee. On May 30, 2006, the Center received hardcopies of the Complaint.

On May 31, 2006, after the Center sent a Request for Verification to the Registrar requesting verification of registration data, the Registrar confirmed, inter alia, that it is the registrar of the Domain Names and that the Domain Names are registered in the Respondent’s name.

The Center verified that the Complaint (with Amendment) satisfies the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

On June 8, 2006, the Center sent a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent, together with copies of the Complaint (with Amendment), with a copy to the Complainant. This notification was sent by the methods required under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules.

On June 27, 2006, the Center received the Response of Respondent via email. On July 3, 2006, the Center received the Response of Respondent in hardcopy.

On July 5, 2006, after the Center received a completed and signed Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence from Richard W. Page (the “Panel”), the Center notified the parties of the appointment of a single-member panel.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is the owner of the trademarks and service marks for SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and SDA (the “Marks”), which Marks have been continuously used in interstate commerce in the United States and worldwide since 1860. Complainant has United States registration No. 1,117,185 for “religious books…commentaries, yearbooks, booklets and bibles; …conducting religious observances and missionary services” and has registered SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and SDA in countries outside the United States of America. The Marks have been in continuous and uninterrupted use for 146 years. The Marks have been used as Complainant’s denominational, corporate and trade name (“Seventh-day Adventist Church”) in all of its union conference names, its local conferences, and virtually all of its Seventh-day Adventist churches located in the United States. The ministerial outreach of the Seventh-day Adventist Church includes its churches, schools, colleges and universities, its healthcare institutions, and hospitals, its national and international outreach through the Adventist Development and Relief Agency, its media centers, its radio and television stations, its publishing houses and its publications.

The domain names of Complainant include <adventist.org> and <7thdayadventistchurch.org> among others. Telephone and other directories throughout the United States, including the State of Tennessee in which Respondent is located, list Seventh-day Adventist churches and SDA churches.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant’s contentions

i. Complainant contend that it has registrations of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and SDA Marks; that its trademark registrations are valid and subsisting; and, that they serve as prima facie evidence of its ownership and the validity of the Marks. 15 U.S.C. § 1115. Complainant further alleges that its registrations are incontestable and conclusive evidence of its exclusive right to use the Marks in connection with the stated goods and services. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1065 and 115(b).

ii. Complainant argues that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Marks, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because they wholly incorporate the phrases SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and SDA with the addition of generic terms such as hyphens and the phrase “creation.”

iii. Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and that Respondent has failed to demonstrate any of the three circumstances that constitute rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Names.

Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names under paragraph 4(c)(i) because he has not made use, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Names in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant alleges that diverting Internet users and consumers by use of the confusingly similar Domain Names is not a bona fide offering of good or services.

Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names under paragraph 4(c)(ii) because he has not and is not commonly known under any of the Domain Names. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST or SDA Marks in a domain name or in any other manner. Complainant further alleges that Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests by usurping for his own use names Respondent knew were protected by the Marks.

Respondent cannot demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names under paragraph 4(c)(iii) because he is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names without the intent to (a) derive commercial gain, (b) misleadingly divert consumers, or (c) tarnish the trademark at issue. Complainant contends that Respondent has deliberately registered the Domain Names containing the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and SDA Marks to attract the attention of Internet users and to misleadingly divert Internet users and consumers searching for Complainant. Complainant further contends that for this reason Respondent’s use cannot be considered legitimate.

iv. Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Domain Names in bad faith in violation of paragraph 4(a)(iii).

Complainant argues that Respondent Walter McGill at one time was a Seventh-day Adventist minister of Complainant’s Seventh-day Adventist Church. Respondent subsequently left the Seventh-day Adventist Church and only then registered the four Domain Names at issue in this proceeding. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the Domain Names to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website, product or services.

B. Respondent’s contentions

i. Respondent does not dispute that the Complainant has registrations of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and SDA Marks.

Respondent argues that Seventh-day Adventism is a religion which may be freely practiced by all believers and churches adhering to the tenets of this religion. Respondent cites Stoker & Perry v. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, USPTO (1996) in a minority dissent that religion is not protectable as goods or services susceptible to trademark protection.

Respondent argues that Complainant has known of the registration of Respondent’s Domain Names since 1998, and waited seven years to complain of the Domain Names. Respondent essentially argues that Complainant has waived its right to now object.

Respondent asserts that he was a lay-member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, but separated his membership in 1988, by divine revelation from Yahweh and a belief that Complainant had forsaken church doctrine and unduly punished perceived heretics. Respondent’s Creation Seventh-day Adventist Church restored and maintained historic dogma. Because Complainant has deviated from its own fundamental doctrine, Respondent alleges that Complainant has lost the right to protection of its name as against a new association which adopted the same name and which was formed by dissenting members who remained true to the religious doctrine.

ii. Respondent asserts that the Domain Names are not identical or confusingly similar to the Marks because a reasonable person would not assume the Domain Names are actually being used or sponsored by Complainant.

Respondent asserts that his websites to which the Domain Names resolve are easily distinguishable from Complainant’s because the websites contain the disclaimer “The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church – Seventh-day Adventist Church Purified & Reorganized.” Respondent further asserts that there is no likelihood of confusion.

iii. Respondent asserts that he has rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because he is conducting a religion which is not engaged in commercial activity.

Respondent alleges that he is involved in the free dissemination of the gospel of Jesus Christ and not in commercial activity. Respondent further alleges that he sells no goods or services and his only receipts are from the donations of Respondents’ followers.

iv. Respondent denies that he registered or used the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent claims that there is no showing of bad faith based on paragraph 4(b), specifically because Respondent is making a fair, non-commercial use of the Domain Names.

Respondent advises the Panel that he has been commanded by Yahweh to employ the name Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church in describing the true religion and fellowship of His spiritual kingdom on Earth. Respondent must obey God rather than men.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”

Because both the Complainant and Respondent are domiciled in the United States and United States courts have recent experience with similar disputes, to the extent that it would assist the Panel in determining whether the Complainant has met its burden as established by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel shall look to rules and principles of law set out in decisions of the courts of the United States. Tribeca Film Center, Inc. v. Lorenzo Brusasco-Mackenzie, WIPO Case No.

D2000-1772 .

Enforceable Trademark Rights

Complainant contends that it has registrations of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and SDA Marks and that its trademark registrations are valid and subsisting and serve as prima facie evidence of its ownership and the validity of the Marks. 15 U.S.C. § 1115. Complainant further alleges that its registrations are incontestable and conclusive evidence of its ownership of the Marks and exclusive right to use the Marks in connection with the stated goods. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1065 and 1115(b).

Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive. Respondent has the burden of refuting this assumption. See, e.g., EAuto, L.L.C. v. Triple S. Auto Parts d/b/a Kung Fu Yea Enterprises, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0047.

Respondent asserts that he is free to practice adhering to the tenets of his religion and that religion is not protectable as a trademark. Furthermore, Respondent asserts that Complainant has deviated from its own fundamental doctrine and lost the right to protection of its name as against a new association which adopted the same name and which was formed by dissenting members who remained true to the religious doctrine.

The Panel does not believe that the freedom to practice religion or the deviation from fundamental doctrine constitute defenses cognizable under the Policy to invalidate the protection afforded Complainant by its registered Marks.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant, for purposes of this proceeding, has enforceable rights in the Marks.

Identity or Confusing Similarity

Complainant argues that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Marks, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, because they wholly incorporate the phrases SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST and SDA with the addition of generic terms such as hyphens and the phrase “creation”.

Respondent counters that his websites to which the Domain Names resolve are easily distinguishable from Complainant’s. The website further contains the disclaimer “The Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church – Seventh-day Adventist Church Purified & Reorganized.” Therefore, there is no likelihood of confusion.

As numerous courts and prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered mark. See Paccar Inc. v. Telescan Technologies, L.L.C., 115 F. Supp. 772 (E.D. Mich. 2000) (finding that <peterbuilttrucks.com>, <kenworthtrucks.com> and similar domain names are not appreciably different from the trademarks PETERBUILT and KENWORTH); Quixar Investments Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253 (finding that QUIXTAR and <quixtarmortgage.com> are legally identical). The addition of other terms in the domain name does not affect a finding that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s registered trademark, regardless of any disclaimer which may be placed on a respondent’s website.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Marks in which the Complainant has rights pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).