Geek Squad Sends Cease-and-Desist Letter To God Squad

An anonymous reader writes "A Wisconsin priest has God on his car but Best Buy's lawyers on his back. Father Luke Strand at the Holy Family Parish in Fond Du Lac says he has received a cease-and-desist letter from the electronics retailer. From the article: 'At issue is Strand's black Volkswagen Beetle with door stickers bearing the name "God Squad" in a logo similar to that of Best Buy's Geek Squad, a group of electronics troubleshooters. Strand told the Fond du Lac Reporter that the car is a creative way to spur discussion and bring his faith to others. Best Buy Co. tells the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that it appreciates what Strand is trying to do, but it's bad precedent to let groups violate its trademarks.'"

Comments

Logo

[g0bshiTe]

http://www.i4u.com/37852/omg-geek-squad-wants-sue-priest The priests logo. And we all know what Geek Squad logo looks like.

Re:Logo

[XxtraLarGe]

And we all know what Geek Squad logo looks like.

I was just going to post the same thing. Looking through 12 pages of "geek squad" images, I don't see any images that Best Buy uses that could be confused with this one.

Re:Logo

[eastlight_jim]

No we don't... Geek squad car. It is basically the same, isn't it?

Re:Logo

[g0bshiTe]

The Geek Squad colors are reversed. Orange up top black on bottom. I can see how this would be infringing.

Re:Logo

[SimonTheSoundMan]

Why not sue Slashdot, it is owned by Geeknet.

Re:Logo

[rotide]

This really has nothing to do with the word Geek or the word Squad for that matter. If you look at the car the church made up and then look at a photo of a Geek Squad car you can see the unmistakable resemblance. In fact, I'd dare say a pretty blatant copy with a few details changed to fit the church. Now if Taco get a VW Beetle, paints it with GeekSquad colors and then sticks on a logo that is _very_ close to the trademarked one, then yes, Taco will get a C&D too.

Re:Logo

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

The Geek Squad colors are reversed. Orange up top black on bottom.

Does that mean that Geek Squad is Satanic?

Re:Logo

[psbrogna]

It's only fear mongering if somebody is afraid. Are your own beliefs that shaky that you actually give a crap what this guy does? I suggest a whit of tolerance my friend. This is solely a copyright or trademark issue; it doesn't matter whether he's selling iced cream or evangelizing Linux out of his Bug.

Re:Logo

[InsaneProcessor]

You just cannot stand the idea that you are not center of the universe and that you are not in full control of your destiny. I suggest that you get some help Mr. Atheist because you seem inordinately preoccupied with a god that you allegedly do not believe in and the followers of said god.

Well said. It seems that atheists are awfully concerned about the God of the Universe these days.

Re:Logo

[Dishevel]

Tough choice.

Re:Logo

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I was just going to post the same thing. Looking through 12 pages of "geek squad" images, I don't see any images that Best Buy uses that could be confused with this one.

I hope that's sarcasm, there's plenty of similarity between the "God Squad" logo they used on their Beetle and the "Geek Squad" logos on their Beetles, changing the letters in one word makes it a pretty simple case of trademark rip-off.

I think it's easy to tell the difference just by reading the top word, but Best Buy can't afford to allow an unauthorized entity to reappropriate their trademark.

Re:Logo

[morari]

No, Best Buy isn't mad eup of Satanists. They appreciate what he's trying to do.

Best Buy Co. tells the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that it appreciates what Strand is trying to do, but it's bad precedent to let groups violate its trademarks.

That just gives me yet another reason to not shop at Best Buy. Never mind they annoying and idiotic employees, they appreciate evangelists!

Re:Logo

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I should add to this that there is probably an exemption for parody, it would be a stretch to call this a parody use.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, that's a bit over the top. If a theist can proselytize, so can an atheist. Give that a rest. No need to call each other stupid. But certainly evangelists can exist on both sides of the scale. Others, like me, just get fed up with anyone who wants to convert me to anything (be it theism or anti-theism). I think all folks should just shut the hell up and believe what they want to believe and leave everyone else alone. However, the protagonist in this story is obviously out there proselytizing so it isn't too over the top to expect folks from the other side of the spectrum to do the same.

We really don't need any of the
"neener, neener, you have an invisible friend"
vs.
"you are an evil satanist"
drivel here.

Re:Logo

[Coren22]

I believe there is also an exception to a different line of business. It would be quite a stretch to say this religious man is any way trying to claim to work on breaking computers. Just as Apple Records was unable to win out against Apple Computers because Apple Computers was not in the music business, Best Buy is in the overcharging and breaking computers business, and this guy is in the religious business. Unless Best Buy is looking at expanding into religion...God help us all...

Re:Logo

[cgenman]

Was there every any doubt?

Re:Logo

[oldspewey]

Hold on a second, doesn't the type of service being offered play a factor as well? Unless this pastor offers a service where he comes into your home, searches for porn images on your computer, and then passes those images around to his buddies, I don't think there's a case for infringement here.

Re:Logo

[commodore64_love]

Yeah the logo is similar but parodies have been ruled as protected speech by the Supreme Court. Best Buy's lawsuit would get thrown-out.

Normally I'd say "Fuck you Best Buy," but I think "Smite thee!" might be more appropriate. It is unwise to mess with the Creator of the universe. Even megacorps are not that powerful.

Re:Logo

[Volante3192]

Except this isn't a parody. A parody would be like "Jock squad."

Re:Logo

[Duradin]

Atheists know that god doesn't exist, they hope that god doesn't notice that they exist. It's a lot to worry about.

Re:Logo

[Volante3192]

He might be able to get away with 'God Squad' but he still needs a new logo.

Re:Logo

[SomeoneGotMyNick]

It would be quite a stretch to say this religious man is any way trying to claim to work on breaking computers.

I don't know... Listening to some of the expletives around the office, I believe many people are invoking the help of a deity in hopes that their computer issues don't wreak havoc on the work they've done so far.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

No idea who geek squad is; some business created in the mid 1990s apparently. I'm pretty sure the term "god squad" for missionaries is a lot older.

Re:Logo

[XxtraLarGe]

I hope that's sarcasm, there's plenty of similarity between the "God Squad" logo they used on their Beetle and the "Geek Squad" logos on their Beetles, changing the letters in one word makes it a pretty simple case of trademark rip-off.

No sarcasm intended. I thought they were referring to the image in the article summary on the front page, which can be seen here. Still, I think Best Buy is being fairly petty, and there's virtually no room for anyone to get confused between the two might do.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

No they're sponsored by Duracell.

Re:Logo

[commodore64_love]

Uh.... yes.... "God Squad" is this guy's parody of Geek Squad. It's tongue-in-cheek humor and just as protected as mickeysoft.com or PearPods or payenemy

Re:Logo

[digitalunity]

If the God Squad were using the logo as a retailer of electronics or any other market that Best Buy currently engages in, then they might have a case.

This isn't a parody and it's still not infringing. Best Buy couldn't make an argument that any of their consumers might confuse God Squad with Geek Squad. They could try, but it's obviously false.

Trademarks only apply in specific markets.

Re:Logo

[Surt]

Yeah, but you have to remember that God is just a 'creator of the universe' impersonator. And He is the one who is really unwise to mess with the Creator.

Re:Logo

[digitalunity]

Likely not.

          IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: Computer peripherals and accessories, namely, cables and connectors, surge protectors, universal power supplies and flash drives. FIRST USE: 20041024. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20041024

That's the industry associated with Geek Squad's trademark at the USPTO office. See trademark serial 78589781. Religion wasn't specified when they registered, so Best Buy is kind of out of luck here.

Re:Logo

[Zeek40]

The problem is that Best Buy needs to send him a Cease and Desist when they become aware of possible infringement or they waive their rights to assert the trademarks in other cases. It's not that they want to be dicks to that particular guy, it's that if they let him get away with it, they lose their right to assert trademark infringement in future cases. The Icons and VW Bug thing are close enough that no reasonable person would say it's not derivative of Geek Squad's logos, so if they let him get away with it they have to let everyone get away with it. There is significant legal precedent that non-asserted trademarks are not valid trademarks. It's much safer for them to just send this guy a C&D than to have a different, real trademark infringement case a year down the road where the defense claims that Geek Squad was aware of other trademark violations that they took no action to end those violations, therefore their trademark claim should be thrown out.

Re:Logo

[tehcyder]

"God squad" as a phrase (at least in the UK) long pre-datess the Geek Squad, maybe he should counter-sue them or something.

Re:Logo

[Rob the Bold]

GM got into some trouble when they named a Chevy a "Beretta". The armorer of the same name took them to court for cheapening the brand but the resulting out of court settlement was more symbolic than anything else. Perhaps the gun maker realized that it was bringing ridicule on itself when "Car and Driver" did a head-to-head comparison of the two Berettas, finding a pistol had better acceleration, but the coupe had more passenger room.

Re:Logo

[Theaetetus]

Uh.... yes.... "God Squad" is this guy's parody of Geek Squad. It's tongue-in-cheek humor and just as protected as mickeysoft.com or PearPods or payenemy

No, according to the Supreme Court, in order to be a parody it must poke fun at the original, not simply use a tongue-in-cheek version of the original's name. Contrast the Hustler Falwell case vs. the Michelob Oily case. This doesn't qualify as a parody.

He's still likely fine, though, because it's unlikely that he's engaging in commerce which is a requirement under the Lanham Act. That said, there still could be state trademark law claims against him.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like saying: "I know there are no unicorns, but I hope one doesn't see me stealing it's food.

Re:Logo

[Teancum]

If this were to be used for parody purposes only, I'd agree, but this isn't a simple parody situation used to make a joke. This is a group that is explicitly trying to perform a service that uses this logo and vehicle (also "trademarked") to perform a service.... although this is a service that is in a completely different "industry" that does make the trademark claim weaker.

If these guys were using the logo for repairing computers and other consumer electronics devices, it certainly would be a stronger case. Using this logo to "save souls" is something that is harder to justify as a trademark violation. One famous example I knew about was the "French's" logo, used on bottles of mustard and other condiments also had another company with a similar name and even trademark that had the logo used for hauling concrete. It had another bump on the "flag", but the outside of the trucks were painted yellow and a standard joke was that they were hauling around mustard instead of concrete. If you lived in the Los Angeles area, you'd be quite familiar with these trucks. I don't know if they still are around, but I do remember another reference to these trucks here on Slashdot.

As a parody example, perhaps the best parody I can think of is the TV series "Chuck" that has the "Nerd Herd" as a part of the company "Buy-More", which also has vehicles that drive around (well supposedly in the context of the show) and do electronics service calls in a fashion very similar to the "Geek Squad" for Best-Buy. This is pure parody at its finest and something that would generally be protected even if the similarities to real services can be made.

The thing that stinks about trademark law is that you need to make every effort to defend trademark usage even if perhaps that usage is legal, where the legal burden is upon the trademark owner to force the courts to say that such usage is legal. There is also, unfortunately, nothing in trademark law that penalizes a company from defending itself in even parody situations other than having its lawyers spin their wheels and charge the company for their time in defending the trademark. In other words, even if a company loses a trademark case, they still "win" as they can demonstrate in subsequent legal challenges that they have made good-faith efforts to defend their trademark.

Re:Logo

[clone53421]

Right. The end result will be that the use will be ruled non-infringing because it is a different market, but they have to go through the legal gobbledygook to show that they aren’t just letting anyone use names/logos similar to their trademarked one – not without going through the legal gobbledygook to make sure that it isn’t infringing, at least.

Re:Logo

[MatthewCCNA]

This isn't a parody and it's still not infringing. Best Buy couldn't make an argument that any of their consumers might confuse God Squad with Geek Squad.

I think the reverse would be far worse... My last service call was shit, I had to install a router, set up the wireless, baptize a small child, configure 3 laptops, and perform last rights on a NT 4 box.

Re:Logo

[wiredlogic]

Best Buy could do the right thing and still protect their trademark by offering to license his usage for a token fee like $1.

Re:Logo

[russotto]

Trademarks only apply in specific markets.

Nope; there's a winner-take-all clause. If you can demonstrate that your mark is famous (and the Geek Squad mark might be), you can control it in all markets. It's a horrible law (like much of copyright, trademark, and patent law), but it's there.

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

Yes... just because of this fiasco, i'm going to start a competing company, to take away Best Buy's business.

I think i'll call it Nerd Squad

Geeks suck, nerds rock.

Re:Logo

[KingOfTheMoon]

I think it does poke fun at the original. Geek squad goes around ostensibly fixing computers, but they can't fix a soul. It's not much, but as you said, I don't think you need a lot of parodic content if if it's not for commercial purposes.

Re:Logo

[Theaetetus]

I don't think you need a lot of parodic content if if it's not for commercial purposes.

You don't need any. The Lanham Act only applies to uses in commerce.

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

To be infringing a trademark, there has to be a chance that it would be confusing; that someone would confuse the priest's product with best buy's. They have to be in the same line of business.

To be diluting a trademark, the mark is famous, the holder has exclusive use, the counterparty's use has to detract from or devalue the mark, and it can't be a protected use. (For example: a Journalist is allowed to discuss indicate, criticize, or publish 'unwanted' material and refer to the relevant trademarks when doing so. Coca Cola's trademark of the name Coke cannot be used to prevent journalists from discussing a problem or health risk found with Coke, according to someone's study, or prevent people from identifying their product in literature, or even satire/parody.)

Best Buy doesn't have exclusive use of the name "Squad", or of the colors black and Orange with the use of the word Squad. So there's no exclusive use that's being taken away.

Unless Best Buy also plans to send cease and decist letters to Oregon State next, over their Orange and Black "Cheerleading squad"

And others.....

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all right, the Geek Squad doesn't know what they're talking about any more than superstitious charlatans^H^H^H^H^H priests do.

Re:Logo

[RobertLTux]

and in some cases prayer may work better than geek squad

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

They're atheists... it all became clear now.

Atheism isn't always a true religion.... maybe sometimes it's a way of providing people "plausible deniability" for the time when they come to be judged.

They think they'll get leniency by claiming " I was atheist... I didn't know any better."

They aren't anticipating (Judge bangs the gavel) Ignorance or disbelief of the law is no excuse

Re:Logo

[Zeek40]

Yeah, but then they become affiliated with a particular religious organization and most businesses do not want to do that.

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

No, according to the Supreme Court, in order to be a parody it must poke fun at the original

It does poke fun at the original, when he's driving around in it, going to someone's house and bringing his "tools" (holy books, water, prayer beads, cross, etc) to help fix their soul, exorcise the demon from the house, or whatever the occasion.

Re:Logo

[sjames]

They've probably convinced more than one victim^wclient that there is no God.

Re:Logo

[TexVex]

One day I got a really nice-looking mailer with the MYTHBUSTERS logo emblazoned on it. Normally I chuck spam mail right into the bin, but since I like the Mythbusters show I decided to give that one a look-see. Turns out it was from a local Protestant church. They were running a "Mythbusters" themed series of sermons that had zero to do with the Discovery Channel or the actual Mythbusters.

The logo was such a straight-up ripoff that it passed more than casual inspection!

I'm reminded of the church summer camp I went to one year. It was very very hot that summer. But the thermometer on the pole outside the cafeteria never got up above 80 degrees. So one day I gave it a close inspection and discovered they had put a small nail at the 80 degree mark so the arm couldn't rise further.

So answer me this: why is it ok for Protestant churches to lie and steal, when half their sermons are on how that's the kind of thing Satan does and that doing it will land you in hellfire for all eternity?

Now those are just two personal anecdotes that come readily to mind, but they aren't isolated incidents. It seems that for U.S. protestant churches, there are no rules when it comes to prosthelytizing. They'll deceive you, they'll bribe you, they'll harrass you, they'll do whatever it takes to gain just a little bit of your attention. In my opinion, it is the utmost hypocrisy to cast aside those basic tenets of morality when it comes to "spreading the word". How can a person have respect for a member of a church who will lie to you one day and preach that you should not tell lies the next?

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

You don't need any. The Lanham Act only applies to uses in commerce.

He might take a call in his God squad mobile to go serve as a witness to a marriage.

Sometimes priests take payment for that.

It could be considered commerce.

Re:Logo

[sjames]

Clearly they're entirely separate. Best Buy worships only Mammon. They do far too much lying and cheating to have anything to do with Yahweh.

Re:Logo

[GooberToo]

I can see how this would be infringing.

To infringe on trademark you must be in the same line of business, or at least be in competition, in which potential customers can be confused by the competing similarity in trademark.

When they can prove customers are calling him to get their computers excised, then they have a legitimate case. Until such time, they have no legal leg to stand on. Tech support and theology, as far as I know, have absolutely nothing in common.

Re:Logo

[richardkelleher]

If he wasn't trying to "use" the notoriety of the Geek Squad, he would have used a rectangular sign on the side of an early xB (the boxy(er) one), with different fonts and layout. That would have stood out, this was done to look like the Geek Squad. He is using Geek Squad advertising dollars to sell his product. That, by definition is infringement.

Re:Logo

[powerlord]

Right.

A better choice might be to work with to decide how much he would need to change HIS logo so as not to be infringing on them, and then to pay for it to be done.

Re:Logo

[dgatwood]

Matters not. The term "God Squad" predates the "Geek Squad" by more than half a decade.

Thus, one could argue that if Geek Squad is afforded trademark protection, it would be misappropriating an existing phrase. I don't think this is likely to go well for BB.

Re:Logo

[Mister Whirly]

Churches are not-for-profit organizations. Simply taking money does not make you a commercial business. Do you think that the churches bills just miraculously pay themselves? Churches take in money yes, but they are not supposed to make a profit. (They can only make a "prophet".)

Re:Logo

[GaratNW]

http://weeklypaper.blogspot.com/2008/01/touring-johnstown-pennsylvania.html

It's fairly blatant. Not much sympathy for a priest who feels the need to take some other groups branding to sell god. I don't know about suing, if actual money is involved, but asking him to politely "Get his own brand" is entirely appropriate, rather than stealing one that Best Buy has spent a lot of time and money building. This doesn't even touch the issue that as a company, Best Buy would probably prefer not to be associated with the Christian church, and alienate the 3.5 billion non-christian potential customers on the planet.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheism isn't a religion. It's a state of having no religious belief. A person who has never been taught to believe, and a person who has been taught and choose to not believe are both Atheist.

Personally, I find it a bit naive and egotistic (thereby violating rules that you were taught to live by) to think that you know the answer to a question that nobody can undeniably prove and those that disagree with you are wrong (and will suffer eternal damnation!)

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is going to confuse Best Buy with God.

Ever.

No legal issue here.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

This is incorrect. Trademarks are placed in classes. Best Buy would not need to defend its mark against this guy. Religion and Electronics are not in the same class of product or service. IANAL. But I have registered a Servicemark.

It looks to me as geek squad a registered trademark and should appear under certain classes. I am too lazy to go to USPTO to see the classes. I am betting though religious ain't one of them.

Re:Logo

[hazah]

Not like you know any better anyway. According to what you claim are your beliefs, if you are already in the process of being judged, then you are saved, by definition. The judgment isn't to decide if you're going to heaven or hell. The judgment is to decide your position of servitude in heaven. The sinners get the scraps, so to speak.

Re:Logo

[offsides]

More importantly, trademarks (unlike copyrights and patents) can be taken away from you if you do not "vigorously" defend them. Best Buy is in the unfortunate position of having to take action even if they don't mind this one use, because if they don't take action now it can be used as precedent to defend trademark infringement by another party claiming that Best Buy didn't properly defend it, and thus they should lose the trademark.

It may not be the best PR for them, but the way the rules work they're kinda stuck. OTOH, because of the way the rules are written, I find trademark defense actions to be MUCH less obnoxious in principle than the *AA's copyright infringement actions, given that there's a much more real risk of loss by not taking action in the first place. There are still boneheaded trademark C&D letters out there, but this one doesn't really qualify (especially since Best Buy has publicly acknowledged that this is purely about protecting the trademark, and not saying anything negative about the priest or his motives...)

Re:Logo

[GameboyRMH]

Geek squad goes around ostensibly fixing computers, but they can't fix a soul.

Or a computer.

Re:Logo

[vtcodger]

***No, according to the Supreme Court, in order to be a parody it must poke fun at the original***

Oh, OK. So if he changes the logo so that it explicitly makes fun of the Geek Squad, that'll be legal and everyone will be happy?

Has the public at long last found a real weapon to use against over-reaching IP lawyers?

Re:Logo

[FozE_Bear]

They could also charge the dude $1 a year to use their IP.

Re:Logo

[RatBastard]

Yeah! Just like we hope that Santa or the Easter Bunny doesn't notice us.

Re:Logo

[jim_v2000]

Is that a joke? See: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/89/207682680_b1bbabf6d9.jpg and http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3013/2862066384_7fedacb107.jpg?v=0

Re:Logo

[AuMatar]

Sure they are- its just that all the profit goes to the priests instead of to shareholders. Have you seen how fucking rich some of those evangelical preachers are? Or the Vatican for that matter?

Re:Logo

[yo_tuco]

"Does that mean that Geek Squad is Satanic?"

Only if you read the logo backwards.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

Evangelical preachers are usually for-profit organizations. (Or they start out as not-for-profit but it is quickly realized that they are making a profit and are forced to start paying taxes.) The Vatican got most of it's money hundreds of years ago and has been able to hang on to it somehow.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

Who believes for a second that most churches aren't making a profit? Then again, those buildings look like they cost a fortune. God loves luxurious churches, I guess. Can't worship in some ordinary building and put the rest toward charity.

Re:Logo

[AK Marc]

Any non-profit that isn't run as a commercial entity is either a shill for a for-profit corporation (such as the lobbying organizations) or out of business in 5 years. Churches are run as commercial entities, with accountants, bank accounts, ledgers, income, outgo,etc. If they don't get income to match their expenses, they go out of business.

The only difference between profit and non-profit is that in a non-profit, the shareholders don't get the profits. They still make a "profit" in many cases, they just put it in an account or raise their CEO's salary (or buy him a really big plane to fly around in).

Re:Logo

[tokul]

Best Buy's lawsuit would get thrown-out.

You miss the part where holy father does his business/organizational work on this car. It is not parody.

Re:Logo

[Mister Whirly]

Actually, the biggest difference in for-profit and not-for-profit is the latter don't pay taxes. If you put all of your income back into the business, it isn't considered a "profit". Paying salaries (even inflated ones) are part of business related expenses. I am not saying churches don't make any extra income, but most do enjoy the not-for-profit tax shelter - unless they do dumb things like officially endorse political candidates. Having a fancy church or a high paid priest does not automatically legally make you a for-profit business. I am only talking about legal terms here, not if churches actually take in vast sums of money. I think we are all well aware that some churches do.

Re:Logo

[Mister Whirly]

See my post below. Having high paid employees does not automatically revoke your not-for-profit legal status.

Re:Logo

[Local ID10T]

More importantly, trademarks (unlike copyrights and patents) can be taken away from you if you do not "vigorously" defend them. Best Buy is in the unfortunate position of having to take action even if they don't mind this one use, because if they don't take action now it can be used as precedent to defend trademark infringement by another party claiming that Best Buy didn't properly defend it, and thus they should lose the trademark.

Not entirely true. They also have the option of licensing the usage. They easily could have contacted him and offered a free license. If they didn't want to be seen to be endorsing him/ his religion, they could tack on a non disclosure clause to the license.

Re:Logo

[Chris Burke]

Never mind they annoying and idiotic employees, they appreciate evangelists!

Yeah, sounds about right...

"Hello, have you heard the good news of our extended warranty plan?"

Re:Logo

[BatGnat]

He can just claim it is a parody, and he is protected...

Re:Logo

[ryanov]

Depends on the religion. That does not happen at my church.

Re:Logo

[ryanov]

I attend an ornate cathedral-style church and we are absolutely not for profit. We didn't build the building, so we don't get to choose the style, but it's pretty and it's expensive to maintain. We actually can't quite afford it as it is. Unitarian Universalism is not a tithing religion, though.

Re:Logo

[pspahn]

Tech support and theology, as far as I know, have absolutely nothing in common.

You mean aside from the evangelism of tech support reps? They certainly spew brand loyalty much the same way theology evangelists spew religious loyalty.

Personally, I prefer my spirituality AND my PC to be compliant with logic and rationale.

Re:Logo

[sesshomaru]

What about the Tech Priests of Mars?

Re:Logo

[pspahn]

Why not Nerd Herd? Too close to Nerd Turd?

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

Only when the car is driven in reverse too.

Re:Logo

[waives]

Really... I like the Unitarian Universalists and am considering becoming a member, but I have to say that they have made me feel much more "encouraged" to contribute monetarily than I ever felt when attending Catholic services.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

And now they are the opposite of affiliated with a religious organization, which is probably worse in PR terms. They could have quietly made a deal with a non-disclosure agreement and nobody would ever know about that particulat $1 license.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? I hear a lot of "requests" for some scat porn... or something

Re:Logo

[TENTH SHOW JAM]

No, but it may be that they chose the wrong people to pick on... God Squad

Re:Logo

[AuMatar]

Keep telling yourself that.

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

Churches are not-for-profit organizations.

It doesn't matter whether your organization is non-profit or not; the taking in of cash in exchange for goods or services is still called commerce, last I checked.

Commerce does not mean "profit". The Federal government has a right granted by the constitution to regulate interstate commerce, regardless of whether the seller turns a profit from their transaction(s).

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

It helps that the Vatican is their own sovereign nation, not subject to the laws of any other country, so the Vatican itself doesn't pay taxes. And most catholic churches are "non-profits" in their respective countries, so those don't pay money either, nor on the donations they hand over to their mother church.

But the Vatican still have to pay money for the upkeep of their facilities. Being sovereign means they don't pay taxes, but they have to pay for their own infrastructure, also.

Re:Logo

[mjwx]

and in some cases prayer may work better than geek squad

A non-existent god will never answer your prayers. But on the other hand he'll never make things worse either so I guess you have a point.

Re:Logo

[shnull]

no one likes a catholic priest but i feel this geek squad is just being lame ...

Re:Logo

[Thing 1]

You got a Funny mod, but it's pretty cool that you just basically described my world view. "God" is a protector which exists only on this planet; it is something that we created, using the quantum nature of our brains. So your statement is not at all in conflict with my personal mythology. That it's amusing just adds to it. :)

Re:Logo

[Mister Whirly]

Well, you better take it up with the government, because they don't see it the way you do. They give tax breaks to churches regardless of the fact that they take in money.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think that's correct. It sounds like you're describing agnosticism. "Atheism" is the belief that there is no god.

Re:Logo

[nametaken]

I'm not sure about the viability of this business plan. There simply isn't enough child pornography on your average home computer.

Re:Logo

[ryanov]

I serve on the board and I am a signatory on the checks. I absolutely know where the money is going.

Re:Logo

[ryanov]

Probably need the money worse. It varies from church to church, obviously (and a lot of people don't know how to ask for money the right way)... but what I mean is that it is not in the nature of a UU to just automatically give 10% of their income to their church as some other religion might be able to get, which results in financial problems for a large number of them. If everyone in all UU churches DID give like that, then I suppose it would be possible for a church to make a profit.

Re:Logo

[Anonymous Coward]

And we all know what Geek Squad logo looks like.

No, really, we don't. I know Slashdot is a US centric website, but a large proportion of it's readership lives outside of the US, so wouldn't necessarily be familiar with the Geek Squad logo.

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

It doesn't matter whether they have tax breaks, tax-reduced, or tax exempt status or not. What they do is still legally commerce, when a non-profit organization exchanges (or barters) services or goods for cash (or items of value).

The word commerce does not mean for-profit.

In fact, if a church obtains unrelated business income, under certain conditions they could have to pay UBTI tax.

Re:Logo

[Mister Whirly]

As I said before, then take it up with the government. They do not agree with your assessment, churches DO have not-for-profit status, and they do get tax breaks - even if you don't think they should.

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

Stop lying. The US government still calls it commerce, even when it's not taxed.

Re:Logo

[Camann]

Hah! Unfortunately, no, symbolism doesn't work that way just because death metal bands want it to.

Re:Logo

[Mister Whirly]

I am not saying anything about that. And if you are saying no churches in the US have tax exempt status due to their not-for-profit status, it is you who is lying. There are plenty - my mom even used to be a secretary for one. I get that you don't like the fact they enjoy this status, but calling me a liar isn't going to change any of that. The fact is churches DO get tax breaks and ARE considered legally to be "not-for-profit" businesses. That is an undeniable fact, whether you agree or not. I am not going to argue semantic of words with you anymore, this conversation is over.

Re:Logo

[mysidia]

Either you cannot read English to well, or you are just continuing to tell bigger lies... Let me see if I can find words your pea-sized brain can comprehend.

ALL exchange of goods, services, or cash between two different parties are commerce.

Many CHURCHES HAVE 501c TAX EXEMPT STATUS.

There is nothing wrong with TAX EXEMPT STATUS, but it has nothing to do with whether something they do is "commerce" or not

If a church sells something, that sale IS COMMERCE. Even if the Church pays no tax on the income from the sale, and is not required to remit sales tax. It is commerce, so the government would have the right to charge a tax if they chose to.

TAX EXEMPT STATUS of a participant does not render a transaction non-commerce.

Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce.

Congress' rights are limited (the federal government has no right to regulate commerce that stays in one state, the states have that right)

Congress has the right to regulate even commerce it does not tax.

Congress has the right to tax incomes, even incomes it chooses not to. By definition all incomes arise from commerce.

IF A CHURCH BUYS OR SELLS SOMETHING, IT IS COMMERCE. Even though this is not taxed.

NON-PROFITS are not exempt from laws related to commerce, other than laws that specifically exempt non-profits.

For example, non-profit organizations can commit anti-trust violations and be subject to the same penalties as a for-profit corporation would.

Commerce does not mean "taxed transaction"

Commerce does not mean "for profit".

Commerce does not mean "both participants have to pay taxes"

Non-profit does not mean "revenue is not income"

Non-taxable income is still income.

NON-PROFITS STILL HAVE TO REPORT ANY INCOME to the government.

Re:Logo

[KingOfTheMoon]

And so my adverb was chosen, but I'm sure they've fixed a few. (While selling a few motherboards in the process, of course).

This just proves

[jgagnon]

That Geeks > God. At least in their minds...

Re:This just proves

[IndustrialComplex]

I could understand if this were a revival of ancient religions.

Greek God Squad.

Of course, you would be hard pressed to find a geek that met the physical standards applied to any greek god.

Well, other than Hephaestus, the first Geek.

Re:This just proves

[Spatial]

No, it proves that geeks aren't running Geek Squad.

Re:This just proves

[butterflysrage]

Dionysus

Re:This just proves

[IndustrialComplex]

Dionysus

Really? He was the life of the party. Contrast that to Hephaestus from the wiki:

He was the god of technology, blacksmiths, craftsmen, artisans, sculptors, metals, metallurgy, fire and volcanoes. Like other mythic smiths but unlike most other gods, Hephaestus was lame, which gave him a grotesque appearance in Greek eyes. He served as the blacksmith of the gods, and he was worshiped in the manufacturing and industrial centers of Greece,

If that's not the God of the Geeks, I don't know what is. He was cast down by his parents to go live in their basement.

Re:This just proves

[butterflysrage]

oh I never said Dionysus was the god of the geeks, but he has a slightly more... attainable body than most Greek gods. Hephaestus, while lame, was also freaky strong, even by god standards.

While anecdotal, I know a professional blacksmith. At a festival where he was demonstrating his craft he decided he didn't like the place his anvil was placed so he lifted it up and moved it... a 300lbs anvil, that was nailed down.

Re:This just proves

[Jedi Alec]

Greek God Squad.

Hmmm...scantily clad muscular young men and women going around "fixing computers".

If you'll excuse me...I have a business plan to file.

Obviously overzealous

[IndustrialComplex]

The lawyers are just being overzealous in this case.

God and Geek are not easily confused.

Squad is generic.

And the story, is inappropriately tagged with copyright when this is a trademark issue.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[nschubach]

The logo on the side of the Beetle is pretty close, IMHO. I don't think it's overzealous. It's pretty blatant.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[Nadaka]

They are not being necessarily being overzealous. In the US, trademarks MUST be defended to be valid. If they failed to defend against this possible trademark issue, then the next guy that does a geek squad look alike can point to this case to strengthen his case that the trademark has become generic.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[Anonymous Coward]

However, they're not in the same industry, and there's not much chance of Geek Squad's [potential] customers mistaking the one for the other, which is part of a successful claim.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[qwijibo]

There's more overlap than you may think. Geek Squad caters to many Windows users. Anyone on Slashdot running Windows knows that prayers are a big part of it continuing to work on a day to day basis.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[mea37]

Trademarks aren't enforced on a word-by-word basis. The issue would be the similarity of the logo as a whole.

The trademark claim may be invalid since the priest is not selling electronics or technical support, and presumably isn't using it in a commercial context at all. On the other hand, I'm not sure you could rule out a claim of dillution.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[John Hasler]

> I'm not sure you could rule out a claim of dillution.

Dilution seems to require either commercial use or tarnishment.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[IndustrialComplex]

Serves me right for basing my justification based on the summary, especially when part of my post complained that there were errors in that exact summary.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[BobMcD]

The logo on the side of the Beetle is pretty close, IMHO. I don't think it's overzealous. It's pretty blatant.

So is it your opinion that confused customers will be contacting the 'God Squad' for help with their computers?

Re:Obviously overzealous

[jgagnon]

REPENT YOU SINNERS!

Re:Obviously overzealous

[teh kurisu]

God and Geek are not easily confused.

Only if your sysadmin isn't doing his job properly.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[Coren22]

So is it your opinion that confused customers will be contacting the 'God Squad' for help with breaking their computers?

You should always write it as above, all us true geeks know that no geek works for geek squad. I have never heard of them doing anything other then reinstalling the OS for every problem.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[mr100percent]

Can't they just give official permission then? That's still defending the trademark right?

Re:Obviously overzealous

[BobMcD]

While you make an excellent point, I'm relatively certain that they don't have a trademark within the 'breaking' market.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[WillDraven]

I would consider my reputation pretty tarnished if people thought I was endorsing some old guy who drove around in a VW beetle claiming you should join in on his rap sessions with his big invisible friend in the sky...

Re:Obviously overzealous

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm on /. running Windows (I hate all the major OSs; Windows tends to piss me off less on the whole), and the "OMG M$ AND WINDOWS SUCKS" posts here get a bit old after a while, especially 'cause half the time they have little bearing to reality.

That said... yours made me laugh. Kudos.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[Theaetetus]

The lawyers are just being overzealous in this case.

God and Geek are not easily confused.

Squad is generic.

Trademarks must be considered in their entirety. The fact that "squad" is generic is irrelevant, because the entire mark and the entire alleged infringing use must be compared. The "Geek Squad" trademark is most certainly not generic.

Furthermore, the fact that two words are different is not dispositive for confusion. Instead, the question is the likelihood of confusion of the source. Might a consumer think "God Squad" is a subsidiary of "Geek Squad" or otherwise related? Maybe "God Squad" is the team of senior associates while "Geek Squad" is the regular crew, like paramedics vs. EMTs. Or the Geeks are for homes and small businesses, while the Gods are for enterprise IT consulting. If a consumer may think any of those or others, then it's irrelevant that "God" and "Geek" are different - instead, there's a likelihood of confusion of the source.

That said, the priest was almost certainly a non-commercial user, so the Lanham Act wouldn't apply and a Federal court would lack jurisdiction. But there may still be state law claims.

And the story, is inappropriately tagged with copyright when this is a trademark issue.

That's true.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[IndustrialComplex]

Only if your sysadmin isn't doing his job properly.

Belief is a powerful thing. And I bet most sysadmins believe that they are just so.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[Rob the Bold]

The lawyers are just being overzealous in this case.

God and Geek are not easily confused.

Squad is generic.

I don't think Father Luke has anything to worry about. If Best Buy pushes too hard -- or even if they don't -- Focus on the Family plus millions of "Dittoheads" and Fox News Channel viewers, etc. are gonna be screaming "Christian Persecution". It'll actually be good for business -- for the priest and the Christian-Right media in the US.

And the story, is inappropriately tagged with copyright when this is a trademark issue.

Is there a Slashdot-recognized "trademark" tag? I guess I could check -- yes, yes there is. Right you are.

Re:Obviously overzealous

[Zeek40]

Yes, but then they are legally affiliated with that guy's church, and most sane businessmen don't want the idea thrown around that their Company endorses a particular minister at a particular church.

Parody?

[The MAZZTer]

Can't he claim this is a parody of Geek Squad cars? IANAL so I dunno how this works.

Re:Parody?

[SatanicPuppy]

Nah, doesn't apply because it's not ironic, and it's not targeted at the Geek Squad.

If you did a car that looked like the geek squad car, with a logo that was the same except it said, "Week Squad" and ran around fixing peoples computers with a sledgehammer, and filming it...THAT would be parody.

Or in this case, if these people ran around praying over peoples computers and did it specifically to make fun of the Geek Squad, that would be legit.

Having the same logo on a legitimate enterprise isn't protected by parody/freedom of expression laws.

Re:Parody?

[ta bu shi da yu]

I'd suggest that he remove the image and claim the higher moral ground.

Is this really something he wants to go into battle over?!? I'm sure he has better things to do.

Re:Parody?

[Anonymous Coward]

From a bunch of guys who are lawyers:

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm

7. What constitutes trademark infringement?

If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Elect. Corp., 287 F.2d 492 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 820 (1961).

Re:Parody?

[Anonymous Coward]

He can't claim it's a parody. Geek Squad is already a joke.

Re:Parody?

[cgenman]

IANAL, but AFAIK parody requires the work to be a commentary on the original work. God Squad would have to be about Geek Squad in a substantial way. Also, they would have to use a minimal amount of protected material, and certain other thresholds.

Satire does not require a work to be a commentary on the original work. God Squad could be about anything, and be re-appropriating Geek Squad material for humorous effect. But Satire is not protected in this country in the same way that Parody is.

Re:Parody?

[kjshark]

That's a great idea for a show. I would watch it. Hell, I'll audition for it. kjshark starring in Weak Squad. I like the sound of that.

Re:Parody?

[LocalH]

Hatemonger. You don't want people attacking you personally for your beliefs, yet you attack this guy.

Re:Parody?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, calling "God Squad" a parody means admitting what he is really doing: using his god cheaply to get attention. If it is a parody, the invocation of "God" is instrumental to the mocking of the Geek Squad (and therefore subordinate).

There was something about using something in vain...

Re:Parody?

[Anonymous Coward]

s/Week Squad/Weak Squad/

Ugh

[jschmitz]

I don't know which "squad" is more f____g annoying.............

Re:Ugh

[Chowderbags]

Geek squad tries to get you top spend a few hundred on magical audio cables. God squad tries to get you to spend an hour a week and donate a few thousand so they can spread their message of "donate to us" to others.

Re:Ugh

[onefriedrice]

I don't know which "squad" is more f____g annoying.............

It's a good thing you put those underscores in there or we might have realized you just used a naughty word.

Trademark

[maotx]

If the priest was performing services similar to Best Buy's I could see this being valid, but considering the context is a completely different field, wouldn't this just be thrown out? Or am I confusing trademark with something else?

Re:Trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about the name, it's about the image. He even used the same fonts.

Re:Trademark

[nschubach]

I don't think it matters if they offer different services. It would be the same as someone opening a seafood restaurant called Walleye-mart.

Re:Trademark

[maotx]

Found out a little bit more. Unless you're going to confuse God Squad for Geek Squad, this doesn't appear to have a leg to stand on.
From 1114. Remedies; infringement; innocent infringement by printers and publishers emphasis mine

• (1) Any person who shall, without the consent of the registrant—
  (a) use in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive; or
  (b) reproduce, counterfeit, copy, or colorably imitate a registered mark and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles or advertisements intended to be used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,

Then again, IANAL

Re:Trademark

[John Hasler]

I don't think it matters if they offer different services.

It matters a great deal.

It would be the same as someone opening a seafood restaurant called Walleye-mart.

That might be grounds for a dilution claim depending on details since it would be being used to advertise a product. This guy, however, isn't selling anything.

Re:Trademark

[wikid_one]

I'm pretty sure, if it came down to it, I'd rather call the priest to deal with my computer issues.

Re:Trademark

[IndustrialComplex]

I'm pretty sure, if it came down to it, I'd rather call the priest to deal with my computer issues.

My computer is full of daemons.

Re:Trademark

[harlows_monkeys]

Walleye-mart would be OK if it was just the name of the seafood restaurant, but if the their logo were styled closely after the Wall-mart logo, then they might run into trouble, I believe, because it would have a strong likelihood of making people think that the restaurant is associated with Wall-mart.

Re:Trademark

[nschubach]

But in this case, the logo he's using is really close to the Geek Squad logo and it's on the side of a Volkswagon Beetle, just like the Geek Squad cars (though, not two colored.)

Re:Trademark

[nschubach]

He is selling something... He's selling a service that has little to no entrance fee. It still requires dedication, time and attention.

If an open source project used a similar logo to Betty Crocker, you better believe they will get a cease and desist letter.

Re:Trademark

[Rary]

It's not just about whether or not God Squad could be confused for Geek Squad. If it can be argued that a possibility exists that consumers could believe that God Squad is a service offered by, or at least endorsed by, Best Buy, then it is a valid trademark dispute.

To use a pizza analogy (since this is already a car story), if I sold a pizza, and called it "Microsoft Pizza", that would be an infringement of Microsoft's trademark, even though Microsoft doesn't sell pizza, because I would be attempting to benefit from Microsoft's name and reputation in the sale of my product, by deceiving consumers about the source of the pizza.

In this case, although there is no deliberate attempt to deceive, there is, arguably, a possibility of consumer confusion.

Re:Trademark

[Belial6]

That logo on that car is designed to fool people, and it is for the purpose of offering services. In a best case scenario, the priest is hoping that people will see it, think it is 'Geek Squad', then do a double take and realize that it isn't. In a worst case scenario, some people may think there is an actual connection. Off the top of my head, I can think of a couple of large businesses that have an open religious connection. Chick-fil-a and In and Out Burger both have corporate policy surrounding religion. The first closes on Sundays, and the second puts bible verses on the bottoms of their cups.

The priest was intentionally trying to sell his services by associating them with Geek Squad. This is kind of what trademark is intended for. I know if I owned Best Buy, I wouldn't it want to be associated with what is frequently considered an international child molestation ring.

Re:Trademark

[Zeek40]

That guy is selling imaginary real estate. He used the proceeds from sale of that imaginary real estate to purchase the VW Bug and it's trademark infringing paint job.

Re:Trademark

[Seumas]

You can often use the same name in different non-competing forms of business, but you definitely can't use the same logo. Apple music and Apple computers can co-exist, but they wouldn't be permitted to use/steal each other's logos and other promotional identities.

precedent how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than set a precedent by allowing him to violate the trademark, how about allowing him to not violate it? Grant him official permission to use God Squad. Enforce that the copyright is theirs to do as they see fit, and in this case they could see fit to allow the exception....

Re:precedent how?

[easterberry]

And look like they're endorsing a religion causing backlash from other religious groups and making them look bigoted if they don't let anyone of any faith do the exact same thing (pissing of a lot of the Christians) ? Yeah, that's probably not an avenue they want to pursue.

Re:precedent how?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah becasue the backlash against the majority religion of their customers is something they should totally pursue. What they are doing is already bound to piss off some Christians.

In other news..

[Anonymous Coward]

Best Buy lawyer struck by lightning.

Re:In other news..

[jbeaupre]

Best Buy lawyer struck by lightning.

Best Buy should have bought the extended warranty on their lawyer.

Re:In other news..

[chameleon3]

ZOMG Best Buy hates God!!!11! Tell all your Christian Fundamentalist friends!

We have a fabulous opportunity here.

Re:In other news..

[cdrudge]

Nah. It's like buying an extended warranty on an informercial item. They are meant to just be thrown away at the end of their life. It's not worth the hassle of trying to take them in and get repaired, when in the end, you still have something worthless.

Re:In other news..

[mjwx]

Best Buy lawyer struck by lightning.

Lawyer sues god.

Billy Connelly sues Lawyer

unfair competition

[grapeape]

They were probably just worried that "prayer" might prove more effective than the typical geek squad employee and cut into business.

Re:unfair competition

[Drakkenmensch]

As a tech, I find that prayer is often a tool in my methodology when working with windows...

Re:unfair competition

[IICV]

Yeah, you hafta recite the Chant of Damnation* at least once every time you go through the Ritual of Restarting in order to appease the machine spirit.

Failure to do so is the leading cause of bluescreens (little known fact!)

*You know, the one that goes "Damn Windows, damn Microsoft, damn Gates...."

Re:unfair competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Say a quick prayer and reboot and most problems are gone!

Re:unfair competition

[Kjella]

As a tech, I find that prayer is often a tool in my methodology when working with windows...

You must be an exception, cursing seems to be the norm... then again in Microsoft's defense it seems to be one thing uniting developers, server administrators and support people. I think it's got something to do with the computer not caring so you really can tell it what a goddamned fucked up piece of shit it is without it taking offense.

Re:unfair competition

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps Father Luke should counter-sue, since ripping off suckers with worthless flim-flammery has been the purview of organized religion for thousands of years since before Geek Squad came along.

Re:unfair competition

[toygeek]

Are you claiming that Sacrificial Chickens don't work? I could tell you stories, my friend. STORIES!

Re:unfair competition

[Quiet_Desperation]

Not really. Windows installs usually require a complete exorcism.

Re:unfair competition

[gwayne]

You forgot "Damn you, dirty apes!"

Re:unfair competition

[jim_v2000]

You speak in jest, but I once got a call from a woman who's mother had gotten spyware on her machine and was getting all kinds of porn pop-ups. Her mother's solution was to unplug the computer and put a Bible on top of it.

Re:unfair competition

[T.E.D.]

I don't believe this, but I have no way of disproving it.

non-commercial use?

[bobdotorg]

Does a church qualify for non-commercial use?

Even if they're using it to proselytize / promote / market / attract paying customers / their particular flavor of god?

Selling God is big business.

Re:non-commercial use?

[sammysheep]

Church does qualify as non-commercial under U.S. tax law. But for the sake of argument here are some key differences:

A) Commercial world
- goods and services are exchanged for monetary funds
- the price is set but may fluctuate over time or with the features of the product
- refunds not uncommon
- purpose of business is to earn profit
- advertisement helps people know about products or services


B) Church
- services are given freely, donations are given freely
- the amount of money given is more dependent on the person's desire and means
- who gets a refund on a donation?
- purpose of Church is to worship God and change hearts
- advertisement helps people engage minds or open discussion on spiritual topics

Re:non-commercial use?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually a church is a non-profit 501(c)3 in the United States, so you may have a point here. They can claim they are not a business.

I predict the winners will be the lawyers here, and the losers will be Best Buy for making themselves look like idiots for trying to fight this.

Re:non-commercial use?

[kanweg]

Does look like a business-model to me. Or am I the only one to see the parallel with the shareware business model, now just for open sourced vapour ware? Like shareware may have, it comes with community for thought and discussion.

Bert
Who currently belongs to the church of SJ

Mod Squad

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh for crying out loud. It's more a play on the "MOD" squad than the cretins at best buy. Damn parasites.

Re:Mod Squad

[Dachannien]

No, not really. Look at the logo. It's clearly based on the Geek Squad logo.

Re:Mod Squad

[rotide]

You obviously didn't take a look at the picture of the car the church is tooling around in...

Re:Mod Squad

[John Hasler]

Trademark is not copyright.

Re:Mod Squad

[MarkusQ]

It's even more clearly based on the mod squad logo, which predates both of them by decades.

I'm no fan of any of the parties, but it would be funny if the "infringing" logo turned out to be older (which occasionally happens).

--MarkusQ

Srsly?

[sammysheep]

If he isn't selling anything or competing with them, do they have legal grounds to make him cease and desist? I thought imitation was the highest form of flattery. Do we now outlaw spoof, satire, and creative imitation?

Re:Srsly?

[lotsotech]

Are you saying a church doesn't sell anything? The guy is driving a car and is employed by the church. They had to get that money from somewhere.

Re:Srsly?

[hey!]

OK, here goes. The issue is not that the church is creating customer confusion by between its services and Best Buy's. The issue is that its misappropriation of the trademark *dilutes* the value of that trademark to its rightful owner.

There are classes of ways in which dilution can occur, both of which potentially apply here: loss of distinctiveness, and tarnishment. (1) Best Buy has invested considerable money in creating a recognizable symbol. By misappropriating that symbol, the church is denying them the benefit of that investment by reducing the distinctiveness of the service mark. (2) Many of Best Buy's potential customers may have negative opinions of the Catholic Church because of its handling of the clergy sex abuse scandal. The church's misuse of Best Buy's service mark "tarnishes" that mark with a scandal to which Best Buy is not a party. Even supposing you think such a reaction to the scandal is unreasonable and excessive, that reaction should be the church's problem, not Best Buy's. If Best Buy drove around in cars emblazoned with the ecclesiastical arms of the local archbishop, he'd have a right to object that the dignity of his see shouldn't be tied to the quality of service Best Buy offers its customers.

Both of these arguments hinge on the fact that the logo used on the vehicles is obviously a copy of the Geek Squad logo. It is simply not credible that the priest arrived at this design on his own. If he'd come up with the "God Squad" name and his own logo, that would be a different matter. You can have a "Speedy Pizza Delivery" and a "Speedy Muffler Service" because they're in different industries, but if the pizza shop copies the Speedy Muffler trademark to promote their business, they've gone over the line.

In summary, there gray areas in trademark use, but this use is not one of them. Clearly the church is violating Best Buy's trademark rights. I don't think they are intending harm, and I think in cases of such non-commercial uses it might be nice if the trademark owner was polite and understanding rather than threatening. Nonetheless, the church really ought to cease and desist using Best Buy's trademark for its own purposes, even if it believes those purposes are admirable.

Re:Srsly?

[Theaetetus]

OK, here goes. The issue is not that the church is creating customer confusion by between its services and Best Buy's. The issue is that its misappropriation of the trademark *dilutes* the value of that trademark to its rightful owner.

Nice analysis, but you missed one part that you touched on:

In summary, there gray areas in trademark use, but this use is not one of them. Clearly the church is violating Best Buy's trademark rights. I don't think they are intending harm, and I think in cases of such non-commercial uses it might be nice if the trademark owner was polite and understanding rather than threatening. Nonetheless, the church really ought to cease and desist using Best Buy's trademark for its own purposes, even if it believes those purposes are admirable.

Yes, it's almost certainly dilution under 15 USC 1125(c) (Lanham Act sec. 43). However, under under 15 USC 1125(c)(4)(B), "noncommercial use of a mark" is not actionable. It's unlikely that the priest is engaging "in commerce", nor would any Federal court be willing to call charitable donations to a church "commerce" within the meaning of the commerce clause, since they would run up against all sorts of political backlash. So, as long as he doesn't start selling "God Squad" coffee mugs or t-shirts or the like, a Federal court would likely lack subject matter jurisdiction.

Re:Srsly?

[Bigjeff5]

The thing with trademarks, though, is you must defend them, or you lose them.

Therefore, even if Best Buy only thinks this guy might be infringing their trademark, they must defend it. If another case of infringement comes up and they didn't make every effort to defend themselves in this case, it is almost certain that the infringers in the future case will point to Best Buy ignoring a threat to their trademark. If that happens, Best Buy's trademark could be nullified completely.

So even if Best Buy couldn't care less whether or not this guy infringes on their trademark, they must still defend it against him if they want their trademark to have any legal standing in the future.

It wouldn't be too surprising if this guy ends up with a non-profit trademark license of some kind. It may be that all Best Buy is after is the appearance of rigorous defense of their trademark.

Re:Srsly?

[Anonymous Coward]

See: Frisbee and Trampoline. Both trademarks lost due to lack of proper defense.

Irony anyone?

[waddgodd]

As if anyone needed much further proof, basically Geek Squad is proving that they're not REALLY geeks, as geeks typically are anti-trademark-trumps-all.

Re:Irony anyone?

[tehcyder]

As if anyone needed much further proof, basically Geek Squad is proving that they're not REALLY geeks, as geeks typically are anti-trademark-trumps-all.

I think if I tried selling a priated copy of Windows ME with a picture of Tux as desktop and calling it "Linux 4 Windows" that the geeks would be at least as annoyed as anyone at MS.

Simple solution for these cases

[Fnkmaster]

I know that legally companies have to enforce trademarks or risk losing them. However, for a case like this where there is no actual damage to their business and no real risk of confusion, the best solution from a PR perspective would be to offer a royalty-free license to the trademark and its variant to the person in question.

You know, instead of the traditional "cease-and-desist" letter, you could send a "we notice you borrowed from our logo - we are required to contact you by trademark law, and we will offer you a royalty-free license for this use, in a limited context, if you get in touch with us".

That would completely avoid the nasty press these companies for doing this, and keep the trademark lawyers happily occupied.

Why can't we live in the kind of more civil society where we look for positive solutions to problems in this way instead of simply defaulting to the negative?

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

In theory, maybe that would be a good idea, but in practice it's walking into dangerous territory. First off, it could be seen as endorsement of this guys message, and corporations generally try to avoid religious endorsements since it puts them at odds with all other religions. This gets especially tricky if then other religions start to ask for the same treatment. What if an Islamist group wants to do the same thing? If Best Buy says no, they piss off 1.4 billion Muslims, and also look discriminatory. If they say yes, they piss off a nation full of fear mongerers and bigots who accuse them of terrorism. There's a million other ways that could go poorly, Best Buy really has no choice but to put a stop to this.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck that. best buy can go pound sand. from a design point of view, there not even close.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[MonsterTrimble]

It could, but the bad PR from this thing could be plenty bad. I would rather do what the parent post stated than go after a priest for trademark infringement on something which isn't making him a penny.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

because civility has no place in a world with lawyers.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[AnotherAnonymousUser]

Are you saying that Father Strand is acting in...bad faith ;)?

*Puts on his shades*

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Ksevio]

If it were only one time it might be ok, but religious groups seem to think themselves exempt from trademark and copyright law.

There are lots of stories of religious groups copying whatever they like to put religious propaganda on them. I remember when the lord of the rings came out, one group took the movie poster, replaced "Ring" with "King" and replaced Gandalph with Jesus. Now you may say that's just parody, but I don't really buy it when the point is to promote a religious message, not poking fun of the original.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't seem to worried about perception when donating to minnesota gubernatorial races.

story

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[spamuell]

What if an Islamist group wants to do the same thing? If Best Buy says no, they piss off 1.4 billion Muslims, and also look discriminatory.

Islam and Islamism are not the same thing. One is religious, the other political. You mean Islamic.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[bartwol]

What if an Islamist group wants to do the same thing?

That would be fine as long as they don't drive the car anywhere near Ground Zero.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right!

The geek squad might lose a lot of bussiness if they piss off those christians!

We all know
stupid people = religious
stupid people need a lot of computer repairs because of stupid things they did to their computers!

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

What Nation do you know of as "full" of fear mongers and bigots?

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

The pot is calling the kettle black. Not everyone in this country is a bigot, but you clearly are. You refer to Muslims as just that, Muslims, and then refer to Christians collectively as fear mongerers and bigots. If you wanted to take an equally negative slant and refer to a fraction of each group, you would have had to call Muslims all terrorists and suicide bombers. Why not just say "Christians" instead, it would have made your point just fine.

That being said, I agree with the point that Best Buy is in a tricky situation where they wouldn't want to get involved with allowing religious groups to clearly copy their logo, for the reasons mentioned. It has nothing to do with one religion being more "bigoted" than the other.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Matthaeus]

If I remember correctly, Hormel (the makers of SPAM) actually did this with regards to the appropriation of their trademark to refer to unsolicited commercial email. They basically said, "Look, we'd rather you not use our trademark in a negative light, but we don't want to be dicks about it so we're granting permission anyway."

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[mitler]

The pot is calling the kettle black. Not everyone in this country is a bigot, but you clearly are. You refer to Muslims as just that, Muslims, and then refer to Christians collectively as fear mongerers and bigots. If you wanted to take an equally negative slant and refer to a fraction of each group, you would have had to call Muslims all terrorists and suicide bombers. Why not just say "Christians" instead, it would have made your point just fine. That being said, I agree with the point that Best Buy is in a tricky situation where they wouldn't want to get involved with allowing religious groups to clearly copy their logo, for the reasons mentioned. It has nothing to do with one religion being more "bigoted" than the other.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Rogerborg]

That's right, they decided to stop being dicks shortly after losing a lawsuit to invalidate a Spam based trademark, and being told by the judge to stop being dicks. What saints!

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Teancum]

Islam and Islamism are not the same thing. One is religious, the other political. You mean Islamic.

You mean there is a difference? So much of the Islamic culture is so meshed together that it sometimes is hard to tell. There certainly is no separation of public from religious life in most Islamic countries.

In fact one of the driving forces of modern Wahabism is that Christians go to church on Sunday and break the rest of the big "10 commandments" on the rest of the week.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

I know that legally companies have to enforce trademarks or risk losing them. However, for a case like this where there is no actual damage to their business and no real risk of confusion, the best solution from a PR perspective would be to offer a royalty-free license to the trademark and its variant to the person in question.

You really think best buy wants to get caught backing a bunch of pedophiles?

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[fishbowl]

"we are required to contact you by trademark law"

Widely believed, often represented, but can you cite the law that requires this?

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[socrplayr813]

Personally, I think it's silly to believe in a sky wizard of any kind and would rather he didn't drive around with his logo, but he is entitled to his opinions and it's unfortunate that companies are so heavy-handed these days.

Anyway, I agree with you that they should do something, but it seems to me they'd be better off with a polite request for him to change his logo, rather than a C&D letter. It accomplishes the same thing without the nastiness.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[sco08y]

If it were only one time it might be ok, but religious groups seem to think themselves exempt from trademark and copyright law.

Although being non-commercial isn't an automatic defense in IP litigation, it is a big defense. From a moral standpoint, they're not actually doing anyone any harm. And the way these things play out for them, the legal strategy of "better to ask for forgiveness than permission" makes sense.

Now you may say that's just parody, but I don't really buy it when the point is to promote a religious message, not poking fun of the original.

The parody that was intended to have 1A protection was *supposed* to have a political or religious message. 1A only covers things like humor and porn because it's a deliberately broad restriction on the government's power. The point of 1A is, first and foremost, to enable citizens to engage in free discussions of matters vital to their lives and governance. (The right to be an jerk off / be an idiot / whatever is specifically covered by 10A, and is implicit in the Constitution generally.)

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[lgw]

Were they making a competing movie? Would fans of LOTR be confused by this poster and go to see that movie instead? That would be trademark infringment.

If they just thought it clever to rip off a poster, not so much.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[S.O.B.]

I think you should reread the GP again. He referred to "a nation full of fear mongerers and bigots who accuse them of terrorism". He did not claim that all Christians were fear mongers and bigots he said the nation was.

And after the all the crontroversy over the planned Islamic information centre (not a mosque as the media portrays) near ground zero it's a fair assessment. Especially since there are other Islamic information centres in the area that pre-date the completion of the first World Trade Center building.

But hey, when did fear mongers and bigots let silly things like facts get in the way.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Fnkmaster]

I am not a lawyer, but apparently his relates to the Lanham Act Section 45, 15 USC 1127 which defines abandonment of a trademark. But that law never explicitly states that failure to police constitutes abandonment. However, allowing a mark to become totally generic in usage is considered abandonment.

The requirement to police your mark has apparently been defined by appellate court decisions to meet standards of "reasonableness" and the like - so not cease-and-desisting every usage of your mark doesn't mean you lose the right to enforce it, but if you don't enforce it at all, you will probably have trouble winning a future case. The result of the vagueness of this requirement appears to be that many people err on the side of overzealous cease-and-desisting.

My source for much of this information.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Because lawyers SUCK!

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[AK Marc]

Although being non-commercial isn't an automatic defense in IP litigation, it is a big defense.

Non profit doesn't mean non-commercial.

The point of 1A is, first and foremost, to enable citizens to engage in free discussions of matters vital to their lives and governance.

There's nothing that the lack of that poster would do to stifle free discussions. The poster itself isn't a discussion. And the poster couldn't be confused with the original (like a sequel or such). But, it also is obviously using the popularity of one product to, via association, sell a different product. So I could see arguments for either side, and for "safety" the trademark holders are known to pursue everyone using it.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[AK Marc]

When they stop passing the plate on Sundays, then your argument will be correct. Instead, anything that "gets the message out" does, at least indirectly, lead to income.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[fishbowl]

>However, allowing a mark to become totally generic in usage is considered abandonment.

Yes, and different courts will interpret precedents differently, and will consider some hard-to-nail-down factors about the specific trademark in question. (This gets into equal protection territory, in my opinion.)

"Cease and Desisting" isn't really anything but "giving notice", part of the "reasonableness" test. Too many people seem to think a C&D letter on its own has some legal power. I wish I had lists of those people, I'd be sending them letters all the time :-)

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[fishbowl]

... also my point is that if you (the plaintiff) make a claim to the defendant that the law requires you to do something that it does not, it will severely weaken (i.e., destroy) your case if I am on your jury... Be careful what you say in those C&D letters, because if you lie or misrepresent, you will be called on it.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[wall0159]

...some people even think that religious institutions should be exempt from tax!

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[paxcoder]

parody
  1. A writing in which the language or sentiment of an author is mimicked; especially, a kind of literary pleasantry, in which what is written on one subject is altered, and applied to another by way of burlesque; travesty.
  [1913 Webster]

I wonder if that did more damage to the film than your torrent and seeding. Perhaps the "religious groups" should pay for their 'infringment', huh?

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[SpeedBump0619]

What if an Islamist group wants to do the same thing?

Sheikh Squad?

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[keytoe]

If it were only one time it might be ok, but religious groups seem to think themselves exempt from trademark and copyright law.

Every time I see a car driving down the road with a sticker of Calvin kneeling in front of the cross, I die a little inside.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[Anonymous Coward]

The most fearful people in the world seem to be Islamic. So afraid of women they wrap them in bags. And so afraid of freedom they can't even stand the sound of music or kite flying. They're like blue meanines come to real life.

But hey. When did people ready with scorn for folks simply trying to defend their freedom ever let a few facts get in their way?

The real bigots are those who would appease these Islamic cretins.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[S.O.B.]

I do not defend the Islamic extremists that you describe. I do defend the vast majority of Muslims who only want to practise their religion peacefully.

And I do not have scorn for people who defend freedom. I have scorn for people who hide their hatred by claiming to be defending freedom. It's ironic that the way to defend freedom is to take away freedom, in this case religious freedom.

If you are sincere about defending freedom then defend their right to practise their religion in peace.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[sco08y]

Non profit doesn't mean non-commercial.

And if you read the commerce clause the way I'm guessing you do, you have a ridiculously expansive definition of "commercial." We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, and also other topics such as what planet we're on, what color the sky is, etc.

There's nothing that the lack of that poster would do to stifle free discussions.

1A doesn't say that you're allowed to say something iff it's critical to a free discussion. It says no law can be passed that abridges free speech, and puts no lower bound on what constitutes an abridgment.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[balbus000]

But hey, when did fear mongers and bigots let silly things like facts get in the way.

Never. In fact, quite the opposite.

Re:Simple solution for these cases

[AK Marc]

And if you read the commerce clause the way I'm guessing you do, you have a ridiculously expansive definition of "commercial."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commerce

I see nothing in there about requiring profit motive. Stick to what I say, not what you think would be convenient for me to believe because that would be easier for you to disprove.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that, and also other topics such as what planet we're on, what color the sky is, etc.

Rather than asserting that I'm wrong before you've even determined what my definition is, why didn't you just ask, rather than being an ass? Or give your own? Go ahead, how do you define the word "commercial"?

It says no law can be passed that abridges free speech, and puts no lower bound on what constitutes an abridgment.

Did you just argue that fraud should be legal because the 1st Amendment doesn't place any restrictions on speech?

Its always reformat and reboot with the God Squad

[Anonymous Coward]

They've turned into a bunch of fucking Buddhists.

Also: prior art

[maroberts]

Referring to someone as a member of "The God Squad" has been a semi-perjorative term for someone who takes religion a little too seriously since I was a small child. As well as the fact that trademarks are limited to the area of business you practise in, you can't trademark something that is already in widespread use.

Must Defend Trademark

[TheNinjaroach]

Geek Squad has to actively defend their trademark, otherwise they risk losing it. Looking at the FP's link with a bit more information, it sounds to me like Best Buy's PR woman was hinting at an appropriate solution. I bet they find a way to make everyone happy and simply license the trademark to Father Luke for his "God Squad" use.

Re:Must Defend Trademark

[Dhalka226]

A trademark also only applies where it is in the same field and where there is a risk of consumer confusion.

Unless they are claiming that god has suddenly gone into the retail electronics or computer repair business, they're doing nothing but siccing lawyers on people without justification.

Trademark is not copyright.

[John Hasler]

Best Buy probably has a case against them, as the car and the logo bear a very similar aesthetic and it would be pretty difficult to argue that it was just a coincidence.

It isn't that easy. They must also convince the court that the public might be misled into believing that it is getting Best Buy's product when it is not. Their only alternative is to claim dilution which would require that it be used to advertise an unrelated product or be used in a way that would "tarnish" it by creating negative associations.

Yet another...

[Anonymous Coward]

Company that should pay me to be their moderator of common sense.

geek squad cant win this one. even if they 'win' they'll lose thousands of religious nut customers. If not millions.

Sometimes the best thing a company can do is SHUT THE FUCK UP! Damm.. you'd think with their funds they could pay someone to tell them when to do that.

"Hey no.. this is a bad idea. it will cost us money. and will never gain us money. we are NOT doing this."

Re:Yet another...

[singingjim1]

Just because it's a religious nut stealing the logo? FAIL. They should go after him as if it was just some guy running a business using their logo. Because that's exactly what it is - just some guy advertising his business using a stolen logo design. Nothing more. Let the religious lunatics wax hypocritical about persecution. It just pushes them further to the fringe and, hopefully, eventually off the edge into oblivion. This kid glove approach towards religion is archaic and needs to cease and desist, as it were.

Re:Yet another...

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh he probably has a case being a 'religious nut'.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1

Or in other words yes his advertisment trumps any sorts of law that get in the way of his advertisments.

Or if you do not like that how about we remove those laws? The same ones that lets you spout off your athiest agenda protects *HIM* too.

Re:Yet another...

[singingjim1]

I'm all for removing any laws protecting religion in any way. Tax them and regulate them out of existence. How's that for an atheist agenda?

ABC and Mod Squad

[Haxzaw]

Maybe ABC would like to go after Geek Squad for infringing on their show, "Mod Squad" from the late sixties/early seventies. As others have stated, God Squad is nothing like Geek Squad, in name or deed, no one will get confused. Well maybe I shouldn't say no one, there are enogh idiots around that someone may get confused, but a "reasonable person" would not.

Re:ABC and Mod Squad

[Theaetetus]

As others have stated, God Squad is nothing like Geek Squad, in name or deed, no one will get confused.

What's another name for the root or superuser, one that's commonly used as a login by geeks?

Clearly, "God Squad" is an affiliate operation from Best Buy - Geek Squad does home and small business IT consulting, God Squad does enterprise-level IT consulting. That explains the similar logos.

Yeah, I don't believe it, but a reasonable person could, so there's your likelihood of confusion. That said, the priest isn't engaged in commerce, so the Lanham Act doesn't apply.

God makes Geeks look bad

[pbulteel73]

ergo the Geek Squad brand would lose it's prestige. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. -P

Re:God makes Geeks look bad

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

God made geeks
Geeks look bad
Ergo...

Obligatory

[S3D]

I wonder what happen then God sends Cease-and-Desist order to Geek Squad...

Re:Obligatory

[theverylastperson]

He'd have to show up in court to argue the case.

Re:Obligatory

[clone53421]

Couldn’t he send a postal worker whose lawyer could argue that there’s a little bit of God in all of us?

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

He did. It is called Windows Vista.

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called Die-and-Perish Order

Re:Obligatory

[halivar]

It kind of looks like the Spanish Inquisition. They probably wouldn't even see it coming...

Re:Obligatory

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what happen then God sends Cease-and-Desist order to Geek Squad...

Roughly what happened when Moses carried a Cease and Desist order to Pharoah?

There is a Fundamental Difference.

[sammysheep]

Are you saying that the American Heart Association sells research/aid to its donors? How about your favorite charity, are they selling you something? They have money, but this clearly isn't a transaction in the commercial sense. You are giving money freely for whatever "higher good" you believe in. Your immediate benefit may be incidental or non-existant. If you want to make the concept of commercial exchange equivalent to charitable donation, you may do so, but you must expand that definition to charities you like too or it's just prejudice.

Re:There is a Fundamental Difference.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying that the American Heart Association sells research/aid to its donors? How about your favorite charity, are they selling you something? They have money, but this clearly isn't a transaction in the commercial sense. You are giving money freely for whatever "higher good" you believe in. Your immediate benefit may be incidental or non-existant. If you want to make the concept of commercial exchange equivalent to charitable donation, you may do so, but you must expand that definition to charities you like too or it's just prejudice.

Church != Charity

That's irrelevant anyway. If it was a Muslim group using the logo, wouldn't you expect a complaint then? This isn't about prejudice, it's a trademark and this church-member has clearly copied both the design and style of the logo. There's a claim of trademark there, whether it's valid or not.

For an example; if you used Mlcrosoft's design, name and started asked for donations, you're saying you wouldn't expect a complaint?

By the power of certification

[HockeyPuck]

I seem to recall a comic from back in the '90s whereby some geek had his hand on a broken computer and was saying outloud:

"By the power of certification I command thee..."

Re:By the power of certification

[jweller]

here you go.

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/6000/800/6858/6858.strip.zoom.gif

Re:By the power of certification

[alexo]

Ahh, good old 2000, when Google wasn't evil and Dilbert was still funny.

Orange and Black?

[number6x]

Aren't those the colors of Halloween? Most American religious folk confuse Halloween with some kind of Satan worship (instead of the religious holiday All Hallow's eve, or the older Celtic Fall holiday).

Re:Orange and Black?

[Mitchell314]

(instead of the religious holiday All Hallow's eve, or the older Celtic Fall holiday).

Exactly, satan worship. Heathen.

Re:Orange and Black?

[ChetOS.net]

The religious holiday is All Saints Day (Nov 1), not the evening before it.

Re:Orange and Black?

[Mr. Slippery]

The religious holiday is All Saints Day (Nov 1), not the evening before it.

The Christian holiday is All Saints Day. There are other religions, you know. Samhain, a religious holiday for many Neopagans based on ancient Celtic traditions, is October 31, or sunset on the 31st through sunset November 1.

Re:Orange and Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other religions, you know.

Blasphemy!

Re:Orange and Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

The religious holiday is All Saints Day (Nov 1), not the evening before it.

The Christian holiday is All Saints Day. There are other religions, you know. Samhain, a religious holiday for many Neopagans based on ancient Celtic traditions, is October 31, or sunset on the 31st through sunset November 1.

Because the "ancient Celts" were huge fans of the Gregorian calendar, doncha know...

Re:Orange and Black?

[cp.tar]

There are other religions, you know.

Blasphemy!

Madness!

Re:Orange and Black?

[suutar]

Sparta!

Re:Orange and Black?

[Seumas]

Yeah, but when you think rationally, the stupidity is all lumped together.

Re:Orange and Black?

[Anonymous Coward]

Spoon!

Similar case successfully defended

[AbbeyRoad]

http://www.mg.co.za/article/2005-05-27-laugh-it-off-wins-case-against-sab

"T-shirt maker Laugh It Off has won its fight against South African Breweries (SAB) over its right to mock the Carling Black Label brand."

This was quite a widely publicized law suite at the time and set a legal precident.

In the US however you don't have legal precidents. *sigh*

-paul

Re:Similar case successfully defended

[Attila Dimedici]

If he was mocking Geek Squad, he would have a slam dunk case under U.S. law. I was going to say that he is not. However, I could make a case that even though belittling Geek Squad was not the intention of this project, there is an element of satire in this "God Squad" car (which is a defense against charges of trademark infringement in the U.S.).

Re:Similar case successfully defended

[MarkvW]

Dude. The First Amendment gives the Church a potentially much more dynamic defense than mere satire.

God will crush their geeky lawyer testicles on summary judgment--and on Judgment Day!

A bad logo to pick

[paxcoder]

It's darn ugly. You might've gotten used to it, but for me - looking into what Geek Squad is for the first time - I've got to say that logo belongs on an early 90's surfboard.
"Baywatch squad" or something.

oblig.

[kahizonaki]

"We was too late!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpX3XdU-V9o

Maybe they'd have a case if

[eshbums]

the priest started charging exorbitant amounts for things that a user with 30 seconds on google could figure out on their own. "$80 rosary installation - bring in your rosary, and one of our trained technicians can install it around your neck. *Removal of existing necklaces only $5 each for Reward Zone members"

Re:Maybe they'd have a case if

[tokul]

a user with 30 seconds on google could figure out on their own.

If user managed to fsck up his or her computer, do you really think that he/she will be literate enough to fix it without hitting "rm -rf" fix on google.

Christian Oppression!

[Anonymous Coward]

Christians will be whining about "oppression" in 5....4...3...2....

"Spur discussion"

[Anonymous Coward]

Strand told the Fond du Lac Reporter that the car is a creative way to spur discussion and bring his faith to others.

More like the car is an example of real-life trolling. It gives him an excuse to defend his religion over criticism of the car's sticker.

Attn lawyers

[TRRosen]

Hey lawyers do any of you even know what a trademark is anymore. Its a mark used in your trade.

YOUR TRADE.

Unless they are claiming he is using faith healing to fix computers (more effective then the geek squad yes) They have no business complaining. If I want to open up geek squad plumbing there is nothing they can do about it.

Re:Attn lawyers

[Wilden2003]

If I want to open up geek squad plumbing there is nothing they can do about it.

Not true. They can sue you, even if they have a strong belief that they will lose.

You can be sued for any reason, by anyone. And in many cases, he with the most money, wins.

Look at RIAA, SCO, ORACLE, various patent trolls, etc.

Re:Attn lawyers

[MarkvW]

Trademark dilution is their theory.

They're hoping that God will back down in fear of their threat.

God probably will.

Thank God!

Re:Attn lawyers

[Jedi Alec]

Unless they are claiming he is using faith healing to fix computers (more effective then the geek squad yes) They have no business complaining.

First, we must exorcize the demon Beelzebuddy.

Then, to stave off the fires of Hell must we install the Holy watercooling.

And finally shall I recreate your hard-drive in the image of the father, the son and the holy Norton Ghost.

Halleluja, it boots, praise the LILO!

Prior usage

[whizbang77045]

The term "God Squad" was used many years ago in a derisive way to describe groups of Christians. Perhaps records of this need to be dredged up, and a "cease and desist" order sent to Best Buy.

About time...

[Tactical Bacon]

Considering how virtually every religious sticker I see on a car is a (poorly done) rip-off of an existing trademarked character or logo, it's kind of refreshing to see them actually get called on it. Thou Shalt Not Steal. Unless it looks cool and you can make a mint by altering it to promote your church...

Striesand Effect

[Anonymous Coward]

In 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

FSM

[TyFoN]

They should have incorporated the FSM into their god squad logo :)

God Squad has been around a long time.

[meerling]

I remember hearing it as a little kid in the 70s, so I don't know how much further back it actually goes.
Because of that, I'm guessing the Geek Squad won't have a slam dunk if they press charges.
(That and parody stuff.)
ianal (just like almost all of the rest of slashdot)

Let's not get carried away here

[steveo777]

Best Buy's Geek Squad, a group of electronics troubleshooters.

Nevermind...

Let 'em send me one!

[ndtechnologies]

For my competing tech company called the "Dork Patrol"!

Prior Art

[rayk_sland]

Take it from a long time Christian. The phrase "God Squad" predates "Geek Squad" by at least 30 years...

God Squad was first

[dotmax]

God Squad has been in use by (mostly, i think) Christian churches since about 100 milliseconds after the debut of the Mod Squad pilot. Since 1968. I think there's a Rabbi in NYC who has something antecedently similar going on, too.

Fundies will scream it's an Obama plot

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wait...

David v. Goliath

[WED Fan]

Hey, "Best Buy" has got some issues if God ever figures out how to file an amicus brief.

For prior art, "God Squad" existed well ahead of "Geek Squad". But, if t he issue is the "Black and White", sorry, police departments around the country have that one. If its the logo on the door, if the priest changes it to a nice blue and white shield, or even a cross and avoids the oval shape, then Best Buy has nothing.

The car is his personal car

[epwolfram]

I actually new him when he was a seminarian in Milwaukee, though not well. The car is his personal car, and he's been driving it with the God Squad sticker for years now. I'm surprised that it's become such a big issue now. There is no "God Squad," I think it's supposed to be a somewhat tongue in cheek joke.

Re:The car is his personal car

[W0lfRaven]

Apparently Fr Luke was on the radio this morning and said he has removed the decal.

Best Buddha

[ogfomk]

In support for the father I am getting an old Super Beetle and painting Buddha Squad. The church is always in a funny position. You have to send a message to others otherwise you will loose your tithe and way of life. It is an obvious parody and spoof with a positive message. Best Buy may just say: Look you guys are funny, but don't put VWs all over the place. When the numbers increase, then it is an obvious ploy to use Best Buy's marketing to push a different cause.

Re:Best Buddha

[epwolfram]

It's a guy's personal car, not church property. But yeah, Buddha Squad would be cool too.

Parody and satire rules apply

[Anonymous Coward]

Parody and satire rules apply

How about we sue them for the slur Geek

[kaizendojo]

I really have a problem with this, and maybe I'm alone in it. A "Geek" is: a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual, or a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken.

I am a computer professional with over 30 years of experience in the industry and a successful business owner. I find the use of "geek" to refer to me and my colleagues as highly offensive; for me it's like the N-word. And before I get flamed for hyperbole, there's a lot of despicable history and divisiveness that go with both slurs.

When are we going to stand up and stop submitting to this as 'good natured' jibes?

Re:How about we sue them for the slur Geek

[The Living Fractal]

You know why you're a geek? Because you're offended by the word geek.

Re:How about we sue them for the slur Geek

[kaizendojo]

Speak for yourself. Perhaps you like being referred to as a 'geek', maybe for you it's a sign of 'outsider cred'. As for me, I find it offensive and a slur.

They pretty much have to object

[JeffSh]

Best buy pretty much has to object, because if they allowed the God Squad they'd have to allow the Allahu Akbar Squad..

precedent?

[farble1670]

can a lawyer-ish type answer?

does allowing this guy to run around with "god squad" damage best buy's ability to stop future trademark violators? that is, are they obligated to apply their concerns equally (and "fairly"?) or not at all?

Re:precedent?

[W0lfRaven]

It doesn't matter. I am sure he doesn't have the money to fight Best Buy and will probably just remove the sticker from his car.

Where's the legal case here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Trademarks only apply to protect marks used in trading from competitor abuse, ie within the target market. That's why Apple (Music) and Apple (Computers) had no problem for many years until Apple Computers decided to get into the music business too. That's why McDonald's (Restaurant) can't go after McDonald Construction.

Unless the priest is offering computer installation and repair service, I think he's in a different market. I suppose BestBuy could be making the argument that their Geek Squad services enable communication, and so does God Squad, but I think that's a bit nebulous for any sane court to accept.

Standard /. disclaimer.... IANAL.

Do it!

[MacGyver2210]

Sue his ass, Best Buy, and win.

I'm tired of these religious fools trying to shove it down my throat. Don't want to see it - make it go away.

Re:Do it!

[W0lfRaven]

Well like most people, it sounds like you're in favor of restricting the rights of others because they have different beliefs. Sad.

Re:Do it!

[Seumas]

It's amusing how there are so many people out there that will come to the guy's defense not for any real established legal or principled reason, but just because he's religious. Then again, we've essentially condoned child rape by the church, so what's a little trademark infringement, while we're at it?

What part of "THOU SHALL NOT STEAL"

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "THOU SHALL NOT STEAL" do these so-called Chr-stians not understand?

My SYNAGOGUE would never do something like this.

Re:What part of "THOU SHALL NOT STEAL"

[halivar]

I don't think the Torah has anything to say about IP rights infringement. If you know of any hidden nuances in the original Hebrew text I'm unaware of, please tell me.

Copyright enforcement is often taken too far

[hessian]

Like the Salvation Army suing us for a graphic with the words "Satanic Army" on a parody Salvation Army logo.

What were they afraid of, that Satan would literally repossess their copyright?

Another Evil Corporation?

[Linux-Fiend]

I am spiritual but I don't agree with religion but that is beside the point.

I do wholeheartly agree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. More frequently corporations and special interest groups manipulate and create laws to gain power and control over public rights while exploring ways for the taxpayer to pay for it.

How is Best Buy right to claim that citizens do not have the right to put a logo on a Volkswagen. How does a corporation own any combination of words "x + squad". It simply does not.

It would be interesting if Volkswagen sent Best Buy a cease and desist order to stop using the Beattle to promote Geek Squad (unless Best Buy pays Volkswagen an exorbitant amount of licencing fees)

Doesn't anyone understand trademark anymore?

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems like people on Slashdot used to understand trademark law a little better in general. Best Buy should not have a case here because trademarks only apply to specific types of business. You can have Acme window glass and Acme paper company and they can both have that trademark without infringing on one another. For a real world example, look at Apple records and Apple computer. Apple records was upset that Apple computer was using their trademarked name, but they didn't actually have a case, although they did manage to pressure Apple to sign an agreement that they wouldn't get into the music business since Apple records was a big, established company with lots of money and lawyers and Apple was a relatively small, new company. This is why there's a classic Macintosh system sound file called sosumi (so sue me), because the Mac had all kinds of sound capabilities that made Apple records grumble and mumble about their precious trademark. Later, Apple computer got into the music business (although all their music stuff is branded iTunes rather than Apple, you'll note and Apple is just the parent company) and since it's now the big, established company with all the lawyers, it's the 500 lb gorilla and can get away with it (not that there's technically, legally a problem since they don't operate as a music business under the Apple name).

So, this priest is in the god business, and Best Buy are clearly not. They aren't in competition and there's no chance of confusion between their services to a person of average intelligence. So, legally speaking, he's in the right and doesn't need parody protection or anything like that. Trademark law is not meant to protect consumers from people like him (important note there, trademark law is really supposed to be about protecting consumers from being bamboozled by frauds, protecting companies "intellectual property" is meant to be a side effect) but rather from fraudsters trying to trick people into thinking they're actually dealing with Geek Squad and its high-quality, reasonably-priced service (*Gag* *choke*). Now, Best Buy does have a leg to stand on since he is obviously imitating their mark and name in some fashion, but its a very, very flimsy one in a de jurem sense. Of course, in a de facto, real world sense, if he tries to fight, he'll probably be crushed by the proverbial 500 lb gorilla. I just wanted to point out that most of the discussion here seems to be based on a poor understanding of trademark law. Very simply, he is copying them, but the law says he's allowed to, however the law also says, indirectly (I think it's an "unintended consequence", bah) that whoever has the deepest pockets wins by default, usually without even having to dip very far into them.

In orthodox Russia...

[Anonymous Coward]

...God sends cease and desist-letters to YOU!

good

[Anonymous Coward]

anything that will waste the time of religious halfwits is good news.

Best buy has hit a new low and this much

[Joe The Dragon]

Best buy has hit a new low and this much lower the forcing there sales staff to lie about upsells.

And even the MSN and magazine lies at checkout.

Satire

[bussdriver]

Anything that is satire is safe free speech. his is religious too. the car looks all black and the geek squads are not all black. Plus he is in another line of work, it does not create brand confusion. He could win in court.

Geek Squad is a huge ripoff.

[hellop2]

Plenty of times I've had clients tell me, "Oh, I've already spent $200 for geeksquad to fix my computer, and I don't want to spend anymore on this one."

Geeksquad is way overpriced.

Just last week I was in my phone companies retail outlet where miraculously geeksquad is allowed to have a little booth. They told some poor old lady it would be a minimum of $350 to "recover" the data from her broken hard drive. Really? $350 for pressing "scan" on some file recovery tool? That's half the price of sending the thing to a clean room specialist.

Re:Geek Squad is a huge ripoff.

[mjwx]

Whenever someone tells me "I've aleady spent $200 getting someone to fix my computer and I dont want to spend any more".

I reply with "I've already spent 2 hours fixing peoples computers for free and I dont want to spend any more".

Either the requests stop or they wise up, BTW I also work for beer, that's kind of a given for an Australian, beer is the unofficial currency and you typically get 2 AUD to 1 DAB (Decent Australian Beer).

Good thing, too.

[vegiVamp]

The priest has every right to try and convince people of his faith, within some boundaries. However, he does not have the right to rip off someone's trademark any more than another company has. Not even because it is for spreading the "good word" - that means nothing to anyone who isn't part of his particular sect.

Re:Good thing, too.

[W0lfRaven]

"However, he does not have the right to rip off someone's trademark any more than another company has." Yeah, but does that change if it's a personal car for personal use and not operated by the church? This is the case is in this situation. For example, should you have the right to put a Vegi Squad sticker on your car?

Re:Good thing, too.

[vegiVamp]

A difficult one, that. If I did so for humourous purposes, it might be protected under fair use. If I did so to gain members for my vegetarian cult, it will probably be unlawful.

While the good father may well believe that he's saving souls, any organised religion or group is in the end little more that a corporation selling an idea, and deserves to be treated as such.

religious groups getting preferential treatment

[jidar]

This really shouldn't even be a story. How is this guy using the Geek Squad trademark to promote his business any different from someone using it to promote their door to door vacuum sales? It's not and he should be stopped, but yet here we are arguing the merits.
Don't give me any of that non-profit crap either, I know a lot of small business owners who get by on a lot less than this guy probably does.

Not to be out done--

[dwiget001]

-- Best Buy comes out with cars with a new "Creep Squad" logo. Which is countered by the former "God Squad" people now sporting a new logo "Freep Squad". Mpegs @ 11.

Actually....

[Benfea]

...those likely to see Halloween as "satanic" are likely to think that "Celtic religion" and "satan worship" are the same thing.

Spend some time talking to one. To them, everything that is not Christian (e.g. Wicca, atheism, the Celtic religion, et. al.) is a form of Satan worship.

Funny

[Benfea]

If the lawyer is struck by lightning, every other Christian would hold that up as proof of God's existence, but if the lawyer isn't struck by lightning, not one single Christian would regard that as disproof of God's existence. I always found that aspect of the religious mind strange.

Re:Funny

[mjwx]

If the lawyer is struck by lightning, every other Christian would hold that up as proof of God's existence, but if the lawyer isn't struck by lightning, not one single Christian would regard that as disproof of God's existence. I always found that aspect of the religious mind strange.

I Dont.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is one of the few logical things about Christians.

Now it's the refusal of religious people to accept how remote the possibility of God's existence is and how they are wasting my time trying to convert me that vexes me.

Oh and how churches get tax free status.

Sell him a license for $1.00

[crovira]

The C&D letter should have been accompanied with an offer to let the pastor buy a license for $1.00

It wasn't because the lawyers for Best Buy, make that Worst Buy, are humorless idiots who can't see an opportunity for getting some good PR when its staring them in the face.

Now the SOB lawyers can go lick their own balls.

Re:Sell him a license for $1.00

[Zeek40]

Licensing your multi-billion dollar publicly traded corporation's trademark to a specific religious organization for zero fee would be much worse PR than filing a C&D and letting the lawsuit die quietly and harmlessly once the guy complied with the order.

Re:Sell him a license for $1.00

[Sulphur]

Now the SOB lawyers can go lick their own balls.

Real SOBs can.

So what about this "squad"

[rongage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mod_Squad

Link is going to be pissed about this...

Classes

[Joe U]

I thought the same thing. I mean some people take their computers and electronics a little too seriously, but I wouldn't quite say it's a religion yet.

Unless God Squad starts fixing computers, there shouldn't be any issues.

That being said, the courts that would hear this case are mostly run by a group of morons who go out of their way to let corporations do whatever they want.

Does he do Exorcisms?

[PDX]

Does he do Exorcisms? He can use the ghost-buster's logo instead.

Not necessarily, in the US

[Kupfernigk]

US law can get very broadly interpreted indeed if you have rich enough lawyers. There was the case some years ago of an HR company which called itself "Gentium" (Latin for people. Intel sued. How you could possibly confuse an HR company with a microprocessor seems a far stretch, but Intel won. In Europe, they wouldn't even have been allowed to take the case to court, because European law is quite clear on exclusive categories of trade mark registration.

Except that burying the issue will

[crovira]

have to wait until the blog rolls, uh, uh roll past, not to mention, if the pastor wants it to stay public, he can just ReTweet links to the various blog posts.

Its a lot easier to come out as a Local Hero, and come up with a license agreement which puts "Best Buy"® and "The Geek Squad"(TM) in the best light possible, than it will be to try to control history.

Re:Except that burying the issue will

[Zeek40]

I don't think you'll find any PR people, trademark lawyers or corporate executives who think that the benefits of being a "local hero" in a small community that no one is paying attention to yet outweighs the risks of being a "corporate sponsor of child rape" or "messengers of hate" when the nice pastor you decided to give free reign to with your logo gets caught doing something or saying something that your company has no control over.

parody

[sixsixtysix]

since when is it illegal to do parody logos of things?

Re:parody

[ev1sc3r8]

It's not a parody if your logo is for a real organization. Clearly the Priest is not making a joke here, he's trying to sell his beliefs with someone else's creative property. Hey Father. Thou shalt not steal. Try to remember this when you're "thinking of creative ways to spread the gospel".

Re:parody

[sixsixtysix]

is the 'god squad' a real organization? is it a subset of the church, employing dimwits who don't know shit about the bible and try to up-sell you deluxe bibles that you don't need? it seems like "holy family parish" is the name of the organization, and he is making fun of their logo. it'd be no different if he was wearing a "god inside" t-shirt, parodying the intel logo. on the flip side, the priest is selling his beliefs and should be taxed accordingly.

Not the first time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Religious groups do this all the time. They take a popular corporate logo and put their spin on it. Anybody remember the WWJD logos that looked just like a Tommy Hilfiger logo from back in the late 90's?

monster squad

[Anonymous Coward]

right, I will buy a vw bug and put a monster squad logo on it, and get geek squad sued by hollywood.

not the only one around here

[starblazer]

That isn't the only VW with "God Squad" running around Northeast Wisconsin... I know there are at least 2 more. One of which is a direct copy of the Geek Squad Beetle, with the exception of "God". Same colors, slightly changed logo

Geek Squad VW's drive backwards.

[Anonymous Coward]

I've said it before and I'll say it again, whenever I see those god-damn VW's I can't tell the difference which is the front-end and which is the rear.

Wiches everywhurrrr.

who was first? Copyright or Logo/Trademar

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.godsquad.com/
Copyright since 1997.
hmmmm.
I seem to remember a mash episode (or something from that era or earlier) mentioning God Squad as a play on Mod Squad. The logo on the priests car maybe... but not the term. was around before geeksquad.

Who's better?

[Dave60062]

You know.. the thing is.. he probably does a better job at the God Squad then the Geeks do at the Geeks Squad. In fact, he probably knows his subject matter better than the Geek squad knows theirs. Of course, that wouldn't be difficult.

The Summary...

[Fieryphoenix]

is one sentence shorter than the actual news story. Why even bother linking it?

I don't know what's worse......

[Anonymous Coward]

....the entirely out of control nature of corporatism with regards to copyright law, or the concept of monetizing religious expression to this degree.

Personally, I figure the Almighty has a special place in Hell reserved for most lawyers, and He's already made his feelings quite clear on moneychangers in the temple.

I'm thinking the only reason He hasn't dropped an asteroid upon the offices of the RIAA/ MPAA as yet, is due to the collateral damage that could occur from such a move. Why make more work for Oneself?

Angels and Devils

[zukakog]

Huh, and I thought they liked religious themes. They even call their customers Angels and Devils. http://wsjclassroom.com/archive/05jan/bigb_bestbuy.htm