Forum > General Jabber

Patrick O'Sullivan Instigates Trademark Fight

(1/2) > >>

Hello all,

I've been promoting Creativity recently on Stormfront, posting material and referring people to our websites to take a look at Creativity. A thread was made and stickied by the moderator of Stormfront Downunder, allowing us to more effectively promote Creativity in Australia. When I went to check on this thread today I found it had gone, thinking we had broken one of the SF guidelines I messaged Steelcap Boot (SFDU moderator) asking why it had been deleted.

The following is our conversation:

--- Quote ---Hello,

I'm wondering what happened to our Creativity thread? Last time I looked it was a sticky (much appreciated) but today it is gone??

Was there anything inappropriate posted? I made an effort to keep religion out of it. Last time I posted was advertising our books which indeed involve our religious ideas but I was advertising them to give people an opportunity to find out if they want to be involved with our movement.

Can you help me find an answer on this?

Racially yours,
--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---Gbeetings.

There is an issue of trademark in Australia that seems to be cropping up.

The assertion is made that Patrick O'Sullivan has trademarked the use of the symbology or soemthing like that.

I have yet to hear the full side of either story and am all ears.

However, my position is a modertor of SF concerned with the guidelines of the board.

If there is a breech of legalities, it must be address correctly to protect Stormfront foremost.

Could you please explain very concisely exactly "your side" of this topic. What is your input into the trademark assertion by Patrick O'Sullivan?

--- End quote ---

As you can see, Patrick O'Sullivan is now using his bogus Creativity "trademark" to prevent other Creators from doing their duty. O'Sullivan has taken the exact same steps as Te-Ta-Ma did to shut down the WCOTC. This news should be spread far and wide and O'Sullivan should be exposed for his attempts to control Creativity.

I'm furious! >:(


My reply to SCB:

--- Quote ---G'day,

Thanks for the quick response.

We were waiting for Patrick to do something like this. I am sure you are aware of the character and history of Patrick O'Sullivan, I won't go in to that but I'm sure you have your own opinions.

He does in fact have a "trademark" for the logo and "Creativity Movement" in Australia - a picture of the online record can be found here. We do not recognise the trademark as Creativity belongs to the White race and not an individual and even legally speaking, our logo and "the Creativity Movement" are generic terms. The Creator logo belongs to Patrick as much as the Christian cross belongs to the Pope.

We do not believe there is any legal grounding behind the trademark, the various Creators involved in the Creativity Alliance aren't trying to sell the logo or profit off Creativity - all of our activity is based in "for informational purposes only" and religious instruction.

Patrick is simply trying to own Creativity and make his own personal gang out of it, we reject this and Stormfront should also reject his behaviour as negative and against what is in the best interests of the White race. If Stormfront were to host the logos and information regarding Creativity (within posts), Stormfront would still not be liable and any legal path Patrick decides to take must be with the individual posting the material.

With that said, I greatly doubt Patrick would have the finances or intelligence to launch a civil suit against every individual Creator in Australia and abroad that use our religious symbol and the name of our religion in any way.

Obviously the decision lies with you, I trust you are capable of judging the situation based on what is best for the White race. You should be more than aware of the character of Patrick O'Sullivan, members of Stormfront deserve better than having him as the only promoter of Creativity allowed.

Kind regards,
--- End quote ---

His reply to the previously posted message:

--- Quote ---Firstly, I am sorry about my spelling in the first PM. I was going like a bat out of hell and did not proof read it.

Secondly, I would be thinking that you have given me very good information.

Patrick O'Sullivan comes from a break soon.

When he does, I will listen to his side of things and decide the position of stormfront in regards to this situation.

Please allow this to take natural course and thank you for your patience.

--- End quote ---

and here is another message I sent him further expanding on my position, his reply is further below:

--- Quote ---I didn't mention this in the other message but just to clarify, the trademark Patrick has is legal in Australia only. Stormfront is an American website and so any material that fits his "trademark" is irrelevant as he has no jurisdiction over an American website. The most he can do is sue individual Australians for breaking his "trademark."

I understand you're only protecting the interests of SF but there is obviously no issue.

--- End quote ---

--- Quote ---That is the position I have at the moment, so Patrick wants to make it pretty good.

However, I must do this correctly and thoroughly.

It is my job.

Best regards,
--- End quote ---

So far it looks like Patrick has no case on Stormfront.

O'Sullivan is not and never has been the owner of the Creator Logo we call the Simulacrum Candidus. That is a generic logo used as a religious symbol by Creators all around the world.

The name Creativity Movement was once used as a descriptive phrase encompassing all Creators, but was hijacked by a gang of thugs for their own use.

Creativity Movement is also a generic term that is in use by many many groups, clubs, organisations and businesses. Used in terms such as the Artistic Creativity Movement or the Childrens Creativity Movement, it is shown as generic.

Together this means that O'Sullivan's ownership of "Creativity Movement" on its own is useless. Just as O'Sullivan's ownership of the Simulacrum Candidus on its own is useless - in effect, he owns neither. O'Sullivan's registered trademark only comes into legal usage when both items are used together. Since we do not want to be associated with the misappropriated name "Creativity Movement," O'Sullivan has no legal hold over us.

Patrick O'Sullivan is nothing more than a serial pest who knows absolutely nothing about trademark law and thinks a not to cleverly thought through lie is all it takes to progress in the world.

"Nuts!" to his registered trademark.


Would this be worth contesting? :-\


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version