"OTO" Trademark Verdict :: lashtal.com :: Home of The Aleister Crowley Society

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by Ian_Sturrock on Aug 09, 2007 - 10:27 PM
(User information

Superb news. Well done Starfire! The whole thing makes perfect sense, given the sheer number of different OTO groups out there. If the verdict had gone the other way, it'd be tantamount to letting the Church of England trademark the word "Church".

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by luciferrofocale on Aug 10, 2007 - 10:30 AM
- Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by Paolo_sammut on Aug 10, 2007 - 10:48 AM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by OKontrair on Aug 14, 2007 - 05:52 PM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by Tulku (magick@23enigma.com) on Aug 10, 2007 - 11:41 AM
(User information http://www.23enigma.com)

Congratulations Starfire, it's nice that for once, sense has prevailed in the courts of law. It would be even better if everyone involved accepted the verdict and honoured the traditions they claim for their own.

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by Lelahel on Aug 10, 2007 - 12:30 PM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by ianrons on Aug 10, 2007 - 11:20 PM
(User information http://www.themagickalreview.org/)

The bit about OTO as a "religion" seems bizarre to me. The distinction between the Carmelite Nuns and Christianity should be pretty obvious to anyone, and the same applies here, though with fewer tassels. Also, I'm not at all sure what the purpose or benefit of having several groups calling themselves some variant of "OTO" actually is. It's probably just as much a matter of taste as anything else, but I don't see a problem with Ordo Templi Orientis defending their name(s) against, principally, someone whom they expelled a long time ago. In fact, if I were to set up a group under a specific name, and had some success with it, and then a disaffected ex-member tried to use that name, I would be royally pissed off and would want to do something about it.

Then, of course, there's the other point-of-view, that "OTO" ought to be considered a generic term on account of it having been used by these other groups. That doesn't seem like a very good argument to me, for two principal reasons. Firstly, as I've noted, I think it's sheer bad manners, if not bad magick, to trade on someone else's name (and this does depend upon the legitimacy issue re: OTO, which wasn't addressed by the Trade Mark Registry but presumably will be in an appeal; but that's been covered elsewhere ad nauseam).

Secondly, I think there has to be a qualitative test: although these other groups have used the same three letters, what's on offer from the various groups can differ drastically, and the whole purpose of a trademark is to allow the average punter to identify a product or service. What Crowley wrote about OTO (which arguably forms the basis for the vast majority of Thelemites' desire to approach OTO) doesn't seem to correspond very much with what some of these groups offer, so I think what's really being argued for by Starfire is a redefinition of the term "OTO" along much broader lines than were ever envisaged by anyone inside Ordo Templi Orientis. If that succeeds (after the inevitable appeal(s) and so forth), the term "OTO" will probably end up as nothing more than an addition to Tom, Dick and Amado's business cards. I think that would be an overall debit for Thelema.

However, I suppose there is the argument that the adjectival use of (e.g.) "Typhonian" to distinguish one OTO from another might be considered sufficient to prevent the term falling into misuse; but I disagree on the grounds that there was, and is, too much philosophical and practical difference between the various groups, and there will almost certainly be ever greater abysses in future. With this in mind, it seems like the use of the term "OTO" and "Ordo Templi Orientis" by Kenneth Grant was always going to cause friction, and this conflict is the natural result. Personally, I find it impossible to go along with the opinion that Grant and Starfire are somehow the wronged parties just standing up for freedom and justice.

Of course, there's a whole different angle about whether or not trademarks are "Thelemic" in the first place. I tend to the opinion that Thelema is not an agent, therefore "un-Thelemic", as a term, is meaningless. Chacun à son goût.

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by sjk on Aug 10, 2007 - 11:29 PM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by Patriarch156 on Aug 11, 2007 - 06:11 AM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by wolf354 on Aug 11, 2007 - 12:35 AM
(User information http://wolf354.blogspot.com/)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

After reading ianrons comment I found it more interesting than this news.
It is sad for me to see "New Aeon Magickal Orders" fighting in courts for trademarks and symbols...
Nobody really wins with these trials (maybe with the lawyers exception).
It isn't very hard to imagine negative situations associated with this subject..

Love is the law, love under will

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by MichaelStaley on Aug 11, 2007 - 10:08 PM
(User information

The matter is quite simple. As defined in the Trade Marks Act 1994, a trademark must be capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one party from those of another. Since there are at least four parties in the UK utilising the mark "OTO", then it follows that the mark cannot function as a trademark.

Anyone is entitled to oppose a Trademark application. However, the Trademark Registry would not have allowed the opposition to go forward had they considered that there was no case to answer. I engaged a Trademark Attorney, who also considered that I had a case. She in turn appointed Counsel, who again considered that there was indeed a case. Finally, after the submission of evidence from both sides, the matter came to a Hearing at the end of February, at which Counsel for each side put their respective cases to the Hearing Officer. It took almost six months from the date of the Hearing for a decision to be handed down. In other words, the matter has been considered in great detail by specialists in Trademark law, and it was their conclusion that the initials OTO were not valid as a Trademark.

This was not a "first skirmish", but a decision reached after exhaustive consideration of the facts of the case which went on for three and a half years. There were five grounds of opposition cited on the basis of the 1994 Act, and it was only the fifth - that the application was made in bad faith - which was not upheld by the Registry. The decision by the Registry appears to be solid, and will I believe be upheld should there be an appeal.

We can debate the ins and outs of O.T.O. history - who succeeded who, who expelled who, etc - until the cows come home. A great deal of material pertaining to this was submitted by both sides to the Registry, so they were fully aware of the history of the matter.

In conclusion, I should like to express my deep gratitude to the many people who have expressed their support over the course of this opposition. Thank you very much.

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by ianrons on Aug 13, 2007 - 04:53 PM
(User information http://www.themagickalreview.org/)

It doesn't follow that "the mark cannot function as a trademark" simply because there are some other groups calling themselves OTO. It depends on whether an intelligent "consumer" would judge the term "OTO" as referring to one particular organisation, which isn't the same thing at all. The fact that only very, very few people have heard of most of these OTOs is a significant factor; and there's another point, which I shall try to illustrate.

In this case, although I think there are grounds to argue that a reasonably informed occultist would likely be aware of the existence of the Typhonian OTO, nevertheless this reasonably informed occultist would also be aware that the letters "OTO" properly refer to an organisation founded by Carl Kellner that has a line of succession to the present day, and would be aware that the Kenneth Grant's use of the letters "OTO" is essentially improper. It's rather like when the Japanese renamed an industrial zone "Usa" so they could label their goods "Made in USA". Lots of people are aware of that having happened, but nobody's fooled by it. In that case, "U.S.A." retains its distinctiveness. This seems like a valid argument, but it's not an easy one to make.

Further to this, I note that one of your opposition arguments was to state that if the trademark were approved, the Typhonian OTO would lose its membership. This suggests that you believe the informed consumer has never heard of Kenneth Grant "on his own merit", as it were, but has heard of OTO; which seems to speak directly against your argument that a consumer would be capable of identifying several different groups using the name "OTO". Also, as an aside, I was told point blank by the leader of one of these other OTO groups that he had used a certain tactic to deliberately get people into his order by making them think initially that his order was Ordo Templi Orientis. Whether or not the type of "customers" here represented fulfil the criteria of being "reasonably intelligent, reasonably observant and circumspect" is another matter... but it's worth pointing out that really very few people have ever heard of TOTO, even amongst occultists.

As to your statement that "the matter has been considered in great detail by specialists in Trademark law, and it was their [sic] conclusion that the initials OTO were not valid as a Trademark", you seem to be counting your own legal representatives amongst those on the bench! :grin: Well, since we're the experts on this one, do *we* think that one of the accepted arguments, that OTO is a "religion", is valid? I put it to you that it isn't! Actually, having read the decision, I'm not of the opinion that the facts were considered in great detail – vast swathes of evidence weren't given consideration, and there are a number of errors such as an apparent misunderstanding about the first publication date of OTO material in the UK, and the incorrect statement about Ordo Templi Orientis being defendants in the Maine case. It all seems to have been rather rushed, which is odd, given the time it took to reach a decision. However, the Hutton Inquiry is a good example of how an expert can get it wrong, and appeal courts exist partly for that reason.

Anyway, the next round is sure to be interesting for those who've read this far down the page. It could go either way, in my view.

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by m.klaw on Aug 13, 2007 - 09:16 PM
(User information

This is why there exists such entities as legal professionals. They don't possess insider passions or sentimentality about what it is they are investigating. In a similar way perhaps, surgeons never allow themselves to operate on friends or members of the family.

The decision was hardly pushed through the mill hurriedly; the period of time allocated for a decision to be made after the hearing was three months. This took over five. The teams didn't just arrive at their decision from the points you raise, there were numerous other factors (mostly compelling) of which I'm sure you're more than aware, e.g. who is the 'disaffected ex-member' of which you speak - Grant or Crowley? Regardless of where the point about 'religion' emanated, some fifty-two definitions of 'religion' exist, some of which were no doubt examined by the professionals in this light. An association of this term with OTO in the present day and age might not be as outlandish as you may feel.

The membership numbers between the Caliphate OTO and the other OTO groups, it was revealed, is hardly one of an appreciable difference, despite what some of its members may have been led to believe in the past. How they effectively measure active membership I've no idea; perhaps this is monitored by whether central office still receives their 'dues' from them (cash now funding the servicing of some legal guy's DateJust!)

Yes, an appeal could swing both ways; although I feel most folks know this would be highly unlikely now. Just because unsuccessful parties have a right to appeal doesn't mean they have a formidable case, one at least that is legally cogent...

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by ianrons on Aug 14, 2007 - 12:35 AM
(User information http://www.themagickalreview.org/)

You write: Well, The teams didn't just arrive at their decision from the points you raise, there were numerous other factors (mostly compelling) of which I'm sure you're more than aware, e.g. who is the 'disaffected ex-member' of which you speak - Grant or Crowley?
Actually, the question of the legitimacy or otherwise of each of the OTO groups was specifically not addressed by the Hearing Officer, so I think you may be misinterpreting some of this. However, I don't believe there would be any real difficulty proving the legitimacy of Ordo Templi Orientis as being the same as the Reuss OTO from a legal perspective, as I've discussed previously in the forums here -- it would basically be up to the opposition to prove otherwise. Likewise in reverse re: Grant. This is quite different from Mick's angle about how separate OTO groups exist nowadays alongside the Reuss/Crowley OTO (regardless of "legitimacy"); and this last point seems much more relevant to the case, quite frankly. Basically, Ordo Templi Orientis want to prove that not only are they the legitimate OTO, but that all other OTOs are essentially rip-offs.

I'm not sure what you mean by "teams [of professionals]" -- by my understanding, the decision was made by one person, though he may well have taken advice.

Regardless of where the point about 'religion' emanated [...] An association of this term with OTO in the present day and age might not be as outlandish as you may feel.
Well, I think the whole thing about religion is probably a bit of a red herring anyway, for the purposes of deciding re: a trademark. However, if it came to it, given that Thelema in one form or another underpins the various OTO groups, I don't believe the "OTO as religion" line would stand up to much scrutiny; and since I haven't seen any plausible argument in favour of it, I really can't be bothered to try to refute it (it's only Rob Curley whose making this argument, right?). The fact that this frankly bizarre argument was allowed to pass by the Hearing Officer without any real look at the counter-argument is quite telling, in my view, and leads me to conclude that the Hearing Officer probably just thought the whole question was beyond what he could reasonably be expected to adjudicate upon, or beyond what was relevant to the case, so he gave the benefit of the doubt to the opposition (as is their current practice, from what I can gather). I get a similar impression re: the argument about the legitimacy or otherwise of Grant's OTO, though not quite as strongly. A High Court judge would be much more willing, I believe, to allow room for argumentation, especially on the former point; but we shall see.

The membership numbers between the Caliphate OTO and the other OTO groups, it was revealed, is hardly one of an appreciable difference, despite what some of its members may have been led to believe in the past.
I don't know what you're referring to here, but if there are a lot of TOTO members then I certainly haven't come across them.

Yes, an appeal could swing both ways; although I feel most folks know this would be highly unlikely now.
It might be interesting to do a survey of people's opinions about the eventual outcome, and group the results according to affiliation ;-)

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by Seth156 on Aug 14, 2007 - 01:00 AM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by MichaelStaley on Aug 14, 2007 - 08:20 AM
(User information

Thanks, Seth156. Your congratulations are much appreciated.

93

Michael.

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by m.klaw on Aug 14, 2007 - 11:59 AM
(User information

I'm sure these comments you're spouting off ex cathedra are not those of your seniors (or senior, rather). Given your mental embroilment in the whole thing I'm very surprised you didn't attend the Hearing yourself?

These other factors I mentioned, and many more, were discussed on the day. It was a consideration of these that went on to influence the final opinion of the Officer, no doubt. I'm sorry, but the Officer, who looked a bit like John Bonner - in fact, I even suspected a bit of cloak n' dagger - appeared anything but inexperienced or incapable. I'm sure he was able to judiciate to the best of his abilities and has in my opinion. He looked the masonic type (If you'll excuse a purely personal perception) so he may well have been informed on these quasi-religious matters; not that this was relevant or the issue immediately at hand.

If you were present on the day you would have had difficulty denying his final judgement. After your side's initial legal histrionics (20 mins), their case literally nose-dived beneath what our side had presented earlier and never quite recovered. This, I assure you, was not due to the suavity of our attorney; evidence and facts did it, and it has been a consideration of these that have brought this judgement to pass.

Perhaps you're not only overlooking the extra time taken to reach this verdict; don't forget that your side had the added benefit of a QC (ours did not). Surely this would have helped amplify something useful for your defence, if anything was hiding?

I'm sorry, but these people did their job on the basis of what they were presented. You'll have to forgive them for not quite clocking how intrinsic the issue was for the Aeon of Thelema, and how they'll no doubt be subject to the direful judgements of Ra-Hoor-Kuit for making such a wrong decision. Feel free to write to them about it. Mind you, they're probably already getting deluged with curses from California...

This aside, I find it more interesting why you feel this is such a thorn in the side of AC's legacy and the magical philosophy he propounded... Isn't Thelema fundamentally about the unification of opposites?

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by oneiros on Aug 14, 2007 - 02:21 PM
- Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by Patriarch156 on Aug 14, 2007 - 03:17 PM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by ianrons on Aug 14, 2007 - 08:42 PM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by the_real_simon_iff on Aug 14, 2007 - 05:44 PM
(User information

93!

Somehow I am very glad that a "trademark registration" was not granted, because such things should not be decided by law. It can't be good when "hard facts" are created when there is always the possibility of change and future findings that might contradict those "hard facts". Just imagine Metzger would have tried this when all the other OTOs were "sleeping" in the 50ies and 60ies. But I have to admit that I somehow comprehend the Caliphate OTO point of view a little. I never understood why the Typhonian OTO is practically universally known and loved for being "Typhonian" but in all "official" documents you just see "OTO". An unsuspecting reader of Starfire or a Grant book who is simply searching the web for the OTO and its logo he saw in the book might easily contact the "other" OTO. Why is it that the Typhonian is not included? Are there any reasons beside "being-the-real-OTO" which is what it looks like to under-informed people like me?

Anyway, hopefully there won't be another law battle. I can live with numerous OTOs. I think it was a good thing that Starfire went to court to prevent "hard facts". Thanks, Michael and Starfire for that. Maybe you can answer my question re: the Typhonian?

Love=Law
Lutz

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by kidneyhawk (kylefite@yahoo.com) on Aug 14, 2007 - 06:26 PM
(User information http://www.kylefite.com)

This news item has become something of a forum thread in and of itself!

Although "OTO" seems to be primarily considered in this discussion as pertinent to 2 particular organizations, its use has been far more extensive than this. I think Ian makes some very good and thoughtful points with regards to how the Letters, Lamen etc are used with reference to the Caliphate OTO but one may make the same argument with regards to the Typhonian OTO, which I think is the point. Kenneth Grant, OHO-TOTO, knew, served, trained under and was present at the funeral of Aleister Crowley. To consider him "disaffected" is, I think, the wrong word. His entire occult career has been based in evolving the legacy of the Beast from that point onwards. Although for some there is no question, the debate over legitimacy continues to this day and WILL continue. However, TOTO, it should be noted, is an organization belonging to the "OTO Phenomenon" and has ackonlwedged and formed cooperative relationships in times past with other "OTOs" (such as OTOA, for example, the work of which infuses the Trilogies at various points).

Distinction between groups is, of course, important. However, it seems very apparent that such distinctions need to fall upon defining grounds other than the use of a name. Freemasonry is a very apt analogy. With the Masonic Community, there are Grand Lodges in Fraternal communication, GLs unrecognized by other GLs etc. Like OTO, it is an international and global network which may be studied and mapped but does not insist on ownership over the word "Freemason." Hence, COTO may consider TOTO to be an "Irregular OTO" but an OTO they remain.

Ian also brought up the initial layout or "plan" of OTO as infused by Crowley. Yet (again, not unlike Freemasonry) changes have occured repeatedly on all sides, some more pronounced, perhaps, in certain quarters. But I see it as very analogous to the Masonic Phenomenon: Egyptian Masonry, Co-Masonry, GL of England, GL of Illinois etc etc. But they are all working from various points in history, evolving (or devolving) into their present and future states and all maintaining the word "Mason" and the shared glyphs (Square and Compasses, All Seeing Eye, 3 Lights etc), despite controversy, expulsions, charters etc ad nauseum.

Just my perspective...and, of course, a late but large congrats to Starfire.

Kyle

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by m.klaw on Aug 14, 2007 - 09:32 PM
(User information

One can easily understand and appreciate what their (COTO) contention is about. However, as specified in the hearing, the sort of membership numbers involved in OTO (wholesale) is such an exclusive minority (a number I found arresting) the type of consumer interested in the sort of 'services' available from OTO would have some reasonable understanding on what is on offer from the different variations. Through the legal lens 'OTO' is a highly minoritative specialist interest, notwithstanding affinities folks may feel exist between OTO and other organisations, like Masonry, et al. If, however, OTO (wholesale) numbers reached anywhere near ... it would follow quite understandably they'd be able to push a reasonable argument. I don't personally see OTO becoming hugely popular for a while...

I don't understand what this guy's problem is with a cluster of ''loosely-affiliated'' groups using OTO prefixed by their own defining hallmark. It doesn't interfere with publishing or the admittance of entrants. Neither would it interfere with some of these groups defining themselves as Thelemic. If consumers were unhappy with a particular 'service' they could leave.

Sorry you didn't appreciate my comments Ian, they were merely observations. No offence intended to you whatsoever, but you really do sound like R. Curley in it!

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by ianrons on Aug 15, 2007 - 09:36 AM
(User information http://www.themagickalreview.org/)

Presumably you're referring to membership numbers in the UK alone. Yes, they're probably only one order of magnitude greater, not counting waifs & strays; and this certainly has a bearing, but with the prevalence of the internet it's probably more relevant what the worldwide figures are.

By "this guy", would you be referring to me? As I've already indicated, lack of a trademark could well allow a lot of nonsense to be perpetrated under the name "OTO" by folks ranging from the well-meaning but bonkers, to unscrupulous denizens of the abyss and "consorters with fictional sludge-monsters". Anyway, there's every chance that some people would think publications with the imprimatur "OTO" come from Ordo Templi Orientis. The question "what is the problem with a cluster of loosely-affiliated groups using the letters OTO?" isn't too dissimilar from the question "what is the problem with someone writing books under *your* name?".

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by m.klaw on Aug 15, 2007 - 12:22 PM
(User information

No, by ''this guy'' I was referring to WB, whose rampant delusions of grandiosity - evidently shared by a large number of his group members - is powering this whole Trademark shenanigan; which thankfully went against him.

Can't see an analogy here: books in this context are authored by individuals who belong to orders, not by orders. Folks who get attracted to the works of a specific author, which may well spur them on to affiliate themselves with a certain group, are certainly going to know which door to knock on, unless severely challenged in some incomprehensible way. This direction would not only be assisted by info in the publication (presumably) but also, as you say, the internet. Identifying the letters OTO within a publication in one or more of its variations will inform folks what the work is (in one form or another) about; its root provenance, etc. To the keen and receptive reader, its particular variation since Kellner will be discerned by the mark prefixing OTO, or (confounding some maybe... ) a suffix. Buddhaghosa, Nagajuna, Tsongkhapa and Daruma are separated by geographical region, school and time-period. Yet, they were all Buddhists and the teachings they transmitted are, by most scholars I know, regarded as Buddhism, despite all those catchy variations. Tricky indeed...

To try and monopolise one group making it the one and only OTO is untenable. There has always been variations and always will be; something I personally think - regardless of its popularity - gives the movement richness and historical importance. Most of us know the attitude of the COTO in its bid to monumentalise the works of AC; perpetuating an initiatory device where one can commune with the spirit of his greatness through their/his rituals and a press for spreading the word. It doesn't bother me if they do this, I just don't want to be involved in that particular aspect of OTO. Yet, there are aspects of his work I find interesting, aspects which have been considered and developed in OTO bodies of a different hue (quite logically) which are more interested and aligned to these areas. Then again, for certain individuals to try and denounce a robust magical history that has - as legally certified - been taking place under the auspices of (a) OTO for a significant period of time, shouldn't be allowed to stand as a possibility, and is evidently being shown the door...

I'm sorry, this launch by them isn't being fuelled by a motive of assisting consumers to better identify a service. It's entirely symptomatic...

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by ianrons on Aug 15, 2007 - 08:52 PM
(User information http://www.themagickalreview.org/)

You don't see the analogy between someone using your name for profit, and someone using another group's name for profit? And by using the term "symptomatic", you imply that Ordo Templi Orientis are somehow "sick" for defending their name?

I fully expect you to endorse my next book, "Cults of the Shadow Realm", by Kenneth Grant, with artwork by Steffi Grant. If the title sounds similar to one already published by someone with a similar name, then the punters are of course entitled to "walk away" from mine if they don't like it. When the book becomes popular (say, more than say 6 purchases), if there's any legal trouble, I'll instruct my solicitor to use the line that Kenneth Grant is trying to abuse his own name for nefarious financial purposes. Perhaps I shall describe "KG" as having "rampant delusions of grandiosity".

This all seems to me to be profoundly hypocritical in the truest sense -- not even realising that there is an equivalence between me using the name "Kenneth Grant" and groups using the name "OTO".

And by the way, I believe I heard Mick say he'd trademarked "Starfire". If there's no problem with groups using other groups names, what's this for? Or do you think OTO should not be allowed to be run "with business way"? At what point does the name "Starfire" become fair game? When an ex-employee decides Mick isn't publishing enough books? Or when someone who hasn't been promoted to sub-editor quickly enough decides to set himself up in competition?

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by Alastrum on Aug 23, 2007 - 01:53 PM
- "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" by lashtal on Aug 23, 2007 - 05:32 PM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by Proteus on Aug 16, 2007 - 03:30 AM
(User information

I can't get really excited about these legal issues with the OTO(s). I thought the apostolic succession thing was for Catholics and Mormons. If it is simply about money and publishing rights, then I think I'm more than a little unexcited. I would guess that Crowley's vision for the OTO was something grander than a publishing house. Maybe I don't understand what the 'deliverable' is of magickal orders. Is it really just books? Maybe so for the outer orders?

From The Webmaster

by lashtal (webmaster@lashtal.com) on Aug 16, 2007 - 01:23 PM
(User information http://www.lashtal.com/)

As webmaster of LAShTAL.COM, I have written on this matter is some detail on my Blog: detail about the response raised, the issues arising personally and the the site. I have not written yet on this site about this news item.

Suffice to say, people that I respected have behave rather poorly and some unnecessary remarks have been made against other people that I respect, including the technical administrator of this site.

I return to the UK next week and will write more fully about some changes that will have to be made here. I am no longer prepared to receive personal insults in emails to private email addresses or to allow the constant name-calling of people acting on the site's behalf. I will include quotes from Private Messages and emails that will demonstrate how unattractive running this site can on occasions be. Given that the impetus of much of this aggression has been the simple winning of a trademark case by people to whom I am not opposed, I find such crowing and vainglorious behaviour unappealing and unacceptable.

Things will change.

Paul
Owner & Editor
LAShTAL.COM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by MichaelStaley on Aug 16, 2007 - 05:02 PM
(User information

From ianrons:

"And by the way, I believe I heard Mick say he'd trademarked "Starfire"."

Whether you believe it or not, you never heard me say that, for the simple reason that I never said it. A simple search on the Trademark Registry's database would make have made it it plain that there is no application pending; neither do I have plans so to do.

Best wishes,

Mick.

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by ianrons on Aug 16, 2007 - 05:43 PM
- Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by m.klaw on Aug 17, 2007 - 12:44 PM
  - Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by Militis on Aug 20, 2007 - 04:56 AM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by ianrons on Aug 25, 2007 - 04:13 AM
(User information http://www.themagickalreview.org/)

93,

Having taken a bit of time to step back from this discussion in order to get a bit of perspective, and having listened patiently whilst a number of people have had a go at insulting me (offsite, for the most part) in some really unpleasant, spiteful and vicious ways – all under the guise of giving advice on “moderation” – I’d like to add a few more remarks of my own.

I’ll start with the suggestion that as a moderator of the site I ought not to be so apparently “biased”. (Site members merely have “opinions”; but moderators who have opinions are “biased”, of course.) Well, apparently no-one wants to point to any instance where I’ve been biased in any moderating decision that I’ve made, so it comes down to just a general sense of dismay that someone who holds what is basically a caretaker rôle here might actually have “views”. However, it’s not really that I have views of my own, it’s the fact that they aren’t favourable towards the Typhonian OTO and Kenneth Grant. Oops!

Perhaps none of the people in the Grant/TOTO milieu who use this site have noticed just how many in that milieu come here. It’s probably the majority of people who post regularly. I seem to be one of only a few people who have differing sympathies and are outspoken about them – and quite a few have been lining up to take pot-shots at me purely on account of that. The phrase “Nazi dickhead” has come up, amongst others, and that’s pretty much the level of criticism. There are (onsite) accusations of using “venom”, when actually – if you look at what I’ve written – I’ve been quite restrained. The most forthright phrases that I've used are these: “bad manners” and “hypocritical”. (And gosh, how I agonised over the last one! Is it too strong?)

There are also little details like the fact that I wrote the news item in the first place, whilst Paul was on holiday, which is (despite my alleged bias) a fair summary of the situation, as one would expect from LAShTAL.com – though as a minor point, Mick criticises the use of the word "skirmish", and on reading this thread one can hardly disagree, so I’ve changed the wording to better characterise the depth of emotion involved...

However, that aside, when the site is described as “non-partisan”, that means to me that the site as a whole is not biased towards a particular group. Well, that’s true. It doesn’t mean that anyone who holds a membership in a particular Thelemic organisation is excluded, it means that all of us are able to share our individual views without fear of ridicule, as long as they’re not mean-spirited or posted with malicious intent. This whole thing about moderators suddenly not being allowed to have opinions was merely invented, as far as I can see, to try to shut me up.

From my perspective, I’ve put up with a lot of what I think is complete gibberish about Typhonian subjects without calling anyone names, and I do expect the same courtesy when I choose a subject that I want to address. The assertion that I’m somehow bringing the site into disrepute simply because I take an unpopular stance and because I happen to contribute to the running of the site is just plain rude, and the fact that a lot of this criticism seems to have been in lieu of reasoned debate is pretty telling; but then it is a lot easier to use insults instead of a brain.

Of course, quite a few haven’t lined up to take pot-shots, but this isn’t addressed to them, or to anyone who just got caught up in the fray, as it were. It seems I’ve upset and maybe lost a couple of friends on account of my remarks, and it’s probably fair to say that I haven’t been quite so open with them in person as I have been here, so it might have looked like a breach of implicit trust (i.e., I haven’t been forthright enough in the past). For that sake, and to those alone, if an apology is deserved then it is freely given, and let the gods decide (though I think we do all understand how passionate we each are about Thelema and OTO, and thank goodness that we’re adult enough not to let things fester for too long unspoken).

Now, there has been another accusation, that I’m a “mouthpiece” for the OTO. I find this pretty staggering, especially when it comes from people who know that I don’t give two hoots whether the leadership of OTO like me or not. The intent seems to be to try to discredit my arguments by imputing dishonesty, whilst the arguments themselves are quietly passed over; but perhaps it’s beyond credulity that I hold the views I do because I happen to think they’re correct? I’m going to offer a link to one of the articles on my website for anyone who doubts this, and anything anyone says on the subject after that is pretty damn irrelevant, especially given that Kenneth Grant’s foremost representative is one of our most regular contributors. (Yeah, the criticism is a bit weak, really, isn’t it? But then there really is a lot of hypocrisy involved here – I was right about that.)

So, after all that, no I’m not going to accept any blame for being honest, and I’m not going go along with the Typhonian crowd and this nonsense about how the letters “OTO” are like the crucifix or the word “Buddhist” (that argument is only being used for legal reasons, but does that occur to anyone? or has anyone presented anything beyond mere assertion to support it?), or how Kenneth Grant’s motives are whiter than snow and Hymenaeus Beta is a big bully, or how Ordo Templi Orientis shouldn’t do things “with business way” – it’s really quite simple logic, but it doesn’t follow that a magickal Order is spiritually bankrupt just because they also happen to operate in the material world. To think that way is, to me, stupid with a capital ‘S’. The fact that any serious temporal organisation (one that owns property) has to have a legal basis these days just doesn’t enter into the calculations, apparently. Confusion of the planes, anyone? or confusion of OTO and A∴A∴? Perhaps we should all live in caves and give up all our possessions?

And as for this stuff about OTO being an exemplar of “Crowleyanity”, I have no idea what that’s all about, I really don’t. At least, I think that if it applies to OTO, it would apply to TOTO (invoking Crowley’s “guru”, Lam?) and the other groups as well. Let’s face it, Thelema is absolutely steeped in Crowley’s philosophy and practices, and even if there are a few people who go about buying Crowley statues to worship, it’s hardly indicative of the membership of any of these groups.

Anyway, what disappoints me is that there has been surprisingly little consideration for other points-of-view in this discussion. I would have thought that, as Thelemites, we should all be capable of realising that other perspectives exist. Whether anyone would go further and try to understand any of them is another matter...

93 93/93
Ian

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by lashtal on Aug 25, 2007 - 12:19 PM

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict

by MichaelStaley on Aug 26, 2007 - 02:30 PM
(User information

Dear Ian,

93

Thank you for your further remarks. I'm sorry that you have been at the receiving end of some invective.

Thank you for substituting "battle" for "skirmish" in the original news item, though I would have thought "decision (subject to appeal)" more accurate and less heated. There is, though, one more part of the news item which is perhaps misleading:

The grounds given for the success of Starfire's opposition relate principally to the hearing officer's view that the name OTO would be understood by most informed persons as being capable of referring not simply to Ordo Templi Orientis as it exists under Hymenaeus Beta, but also to the Typhonian OTO and other such groups (as argued by Starfire, et al.). Also, that OTO is more of a "religion" than a distinct organisation . . . (emphasis mine).

As a matter of fact, it is nowhere stated in the Decision that OTO is a religion. The Hearing Officer does refer therein to the OTO as a religious movement; hardly surprising, given that one of the three classes for which the mark was applied is "instruction, education and training services all relating to religion and religious matters".

93 93 / 93

Best wishes,

Mick.

Re: "OTO" Trademark Verdict by ianrons on Aug 30, 2007 - 05:33 PM