Lawsuit Threatens Bob Enyart's Ministry

[Granite]

They asked nicely, he blew them off. Why should they be expected to just shrug and let this go?

 

[sky.]

You can go to the New York Supreme Court website, look up the case under Bob's name, and read the complaint.

Gives a whole new meaning to .gov I guess one gets what they play for. :chuckle:

 

[Alate_One]

Is Bob fighting this?
Seems like all he has to do is prove that his science is real while theirs isn't.

:rotfl: Yeah, good luck with that. :chuckle:

It'll be the Monkey Trial of the 21st century.

We already had that. It was called the Dover Trial. Guess who lost?

Ful Transcripts here

 

[Doormat]

Why should they be expected to just shrug and let this go?

It makes more sense than doing what they're doing.

 

[Granite]

It makes more sense than doing what they're doing.

Trolling in real life has consequences.

P.S. From what I read it also sounds like Enyart went so far as to mimic Science Friday's logo, which seems beyond brazen.

 

[Sherman]

Trolling in real life has consequences.

P.S. From what I read it also sounds like Enyart went so far as to mimic Science Friday's logo, which seems beyond brazen.

Wrong

Science friday's logo---->http://sciencefriday.com/--Look at the logo

Here another of thier logos----->http://www.last.fm/music/Science+Friday

BEL Real science Friday---->http://kgov.com/real-science-friday

No resemblance.

 

[Granite]

Wrong

Science friday's logo---->http://sciencefriday.com/--Look at the logo

Here another of thier logos----->http://www.last.fm/music/Science+Friday

BEL Real science Friday---->http://kgov.com/real-science-friday

No resemblance.

Ah, good catch. Actually the suit claims it's a trademark infringement, not a mimic of the image.

 

[Doormat]

Trolling in real life has consequences.

A harmless parody appealing to his audience's sense of humor is not trolling, in my opinion. From my perspective, there doesn't appear to be any actual damage done to Science Friday, Inc.

If you speak against the character of someone on TOL, whether they are deserving or not in your opinion, would you think a defamation of character lawsuit was warranted, and think that you had been trolling for your real life consequences?

 

[Stripe]

Trolling in real life has consequences.

Suddenly, when it suits his agenda, stuff done on the internet is real life for granite.

:loser:

 

[Doormat]

No resemblance.

Another thing to consider is that Science Friday has been calling itself SciFry, promoting that name with the show's audience. That weakens their infringement claim against Real Science Friday, in my opinion.

 

[Granite]

A harmless parody appealing to his audience's sense of humor is not trolling, in my opinion.

I guess that speaks to the sense of humor of both the man and his audience. It's pretty clear that he was deliberately provoking SF and was fully aware of their objections before they went to the lawyers.

If you speak against the character of someone on TOL, whether they are deserving or not in your opinion, would you think a defamation of character lawsuit was warranted, and think that you had been trolling for your real life consequences?

Of course not, but that's not the same as a trademark lawsuit. And TOL's not reality, as far as I'm concerned. Some extremely horrible people have said some pretty damn horrible things to and about me (and my loved ones) over the years, but participation in TOL is voluntary, and some sociopathic cretins without lives of their own don't keep me up at night. But, again, the situations are apples and oranges.

 

[Stripe]

TOL's not reality, as far as I'm concerned.

:darwinsm:

:mock: :granite:

 

[Doormat]

I guess that speaks to the sense of humor of both the man and his audience.

Of course.

It's pretty clear that he was deliberately provoking SF and was fully aware of their objections before they went to the lawyers.

I can't say now, but will know more after discovery.

Of course not, but that's not the same as a trademark lawsuit.

But it is another form of actionable cause that could force you into a lawsuit and cost you a lot of money, potentially more money than Bob will have to pay out in a worst case scenario.

Texas couple awarded $13 million in Web defamation case

 

[Granite]

I can't say now, but will know more after discovery.

It's already known Enyart was sent a letter asking him politely to stop copping Science Friday. He admits he blew them off.

But it is another form of actionable cause that could force you into a lawsuit and cost you a lot of money, potentially more money than Bob will have to pay out in a worst case scenario.

I'm not an attorney and don't know if the terrible things said on TOL are actionable. Again, we're all participating here (and in some cases paying money) of our own free will. That may change the dynamic. In addition, the couple in that story were specifically targeted by their actual names and accused of crimes, not merely demeaned or threatened or insulted.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Holding on to one's mark requires the mark holder to defend the mark where they see it being diluted. It is fundamental to trademark law. One loses the mark they hold when they fail to be diligent. For example, here and the end result of lack of diligence here.

AMR

 

[Doormat]

Holding on to one's mark requires the mark holder to defend the mark where they see it being diluted.

But not all uses by another party will dilute a mark, and a trademark owner does not have to defend against every potentially infringing mark.

 

[Doormat]

It's already known Enyart was sent a letter asking him politely to stop copping Science Friday. He admits he blew them off.

I don't know what was written in the letter, and don't see why I should expect him to respond.

I'm not an attorney and don't know if the terrible things said on TOL are actionable. Again, we're all participating here (and in some cases paying money) of our own free will. That may change the dynamic. In addition, the couple in that story were specifically targeted by their actual names and accused of crimes, not merely demeaned or threatened or insulted.

Bob Enyart is the man's real name. If you commit an act of libel against him on this forum, he can sue you if it damages him. I don't think he would sue you, but do you think it would be less deserving of a lawsuit than Enyart's situation where it's hard to see how Science Friday was damaged?

 

[Granite]

I don't know what was written in the letter, and don't see why I should expect him to respond.

Well, check into it.

Bob Enyart is the man's real name. If you commit an act of libel against him on this forum, he can sue you if it damages him.

:think:

That may be the case, but, he is a public figure. I'm pretty sure that changes things, or at the very least opens him up to comments that may be considered outrageous or beyond the pale if directed towards somebody else. Think of Falwell's case against Hustler.

I don't think he would sue you, but do you think it would be less deserving of a lawsuit than Enyart's situation where it's hard to see how Science Friday was damaged?

I don't see much direct damage, but I do see deliberate provocation and an effort to crib, mimic, and or copy from an established program. Like I said before, trolling in real life has consequences. Had this come out of the blue, it'd be one thing. Enyart knew what he was doing and got what he deserved. And what he wanted.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

But not all uses by another party will dilute a mark, and a trademark owner does not have to defend against every potentially infringing mark.

True enough. The decision to defend rests with the holder of the mark, nevertheless.

AMR

 

[Jefferson]

Update: This week the attorney for RSF filed papers in a Manhattan court and successfully moved the case out of state court and into federal court, which is a more natural venue for our free speech defense.