Page:Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra (D. Ariz. 1995).pdf/10

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
URANTIA FOUNDATION v. MAAHERRA
Cite as 895 F.Supp. 1337 (D.Ariz. 1995)
1337

the constitutionality of the copyright and trademark laws, she contends that in the instant case they should not be enforced. She bases her position on the contention that enforcement would not further a compelling governmental interest or “[e]ven the usual governmental interests.” Id. (emphasis added).

If there is any doubt as to the constitutionality of the copyright or trademark laws, either as written or as applied, the government should be notified and put to the task of proving that the laws and their enforcement do, in fact, further a compelling governmental interest in the least restrictive manner.[1] The defendant, however, suggests that it is the Urantia Foundation that has the burden of establishing that the protection of The Urantia Book and the mark of three concentric circles under the copyright and trademark laws serves a compelling governmental interest. Id. at 19. I disagree. It is the government as creator of laws that must act as their defender if their validity is questioned. In the absence of any argument that the copyright and trademark laws are unconstitutional, I find that the RFRA is inapplicable to the instant case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 defense, filing 185, is granted.

URANTIA FOUNDATION, Plaintiff,

v.

Kristen MAAHERRA, Defendant.

Civ. No. 91-0325 PHX WKU.

United States District Court,
D. Arizona.

Feb. 3, 1995.


L. Dale Owens and Scott A. Wharton, of Booth, Wade & Campbell, Atlanta, GA, for Urantia Foundation.

Joseph D. Lewis of Cleary & Komen, Washington, DC, for Kristen Maaherra.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON DEFENDANT’S SECTION 102 COUNTERCLAIM

URBOM, Senior District Judge.

The plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment on defendant’s section 102 counterclaim is aimed at paragraph 96 of the (Revised) Defendant’s Substitute Second Amended Answer and Counterclaim. That paragraph states:

“17 U.S.C. 102 lists works of authorship as a) literary works, b) musical works, including accompanying word [sic], c) dramatic works, including any accompanying music, d) pantomimes and choreographic works, e) pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, f) motion pictures and other audiovisual works, and g) sound recordings.
  1. 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a) (1988) requires the court to give notice to the Attorney General and allow intervention whenever “the constitutionality of an Act of Congress affecting the public interest is drawn in question.” Id.