Page:Urantia Foundation v. Maaherra (D. Ariz. 1995).pdf/13

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
1340
895 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT

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

Joseph D. Lewis, of Cleary & Komen, Washington, DC, for defendant and counter-claimant, Kristen Maaherra.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON TRADEMARK ISSUES

URBOM, Senior District Judge,

This cause is before me on the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment pursaant to Rule 56(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiff, Urantia Foundation, alleges that the defendant, Kristen Maaherra, has infringed two of its registered trademarks. The defendant denies the allegation of infringement and contends that the plaintiff’s marks are generic and were obtained fraudulently. Upon review of the record, I find that the plaintiff’s motion shall be granted in part and denied in part.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Urantia Foundation was created in 1950 with an objective of educating the peoples of the world in an attempt to increase and enhance their comfort, happiness, and well being. The plaintiff employs various means to accomplish this goal, one of which is the sale of The URANTIA Book[1] and related publications. In 1971, the plaintiff registered “URANTIA” and the symbol of three blue concentric circles as trademarks[2] for books manufactured, printed, or distributed by the Urantia Foundation. (Pl.’s Compl. at Exs. C, D.) In 1979, the plaintiff expanded its trademark protection to include printed publications in general. Id. at E, F.

The defendant has been an avid reader of The URANTIA Book since 1969, and “[o]ver the years, she has given away many study aids for [the book].” (Def.’s Statement of Facts in Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Partial Summ.J on Trademark Issues ¶29.) [hereinafter Def.’s Facts]. In 1990, the defendant prepared a study aid that included the text of The URANTIA Book. (Def’s Facts ¶31.) Thereafter, the defendant distributed the

  1. In my Memorandum and Order dated February 10, 1995, 895 F.Supp. 1347, I found that the copyright renewal in the book was invalid and the book had therefore entered the public domain.
  2. The term “trademark” is defined as “any word, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof … used by a person … to identify and distinguish his or her goods … from those manufactured or sold by others and to indicate the source of the goods.” 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (1988).