Folks, the following is the result of the many thousands of dollars John K. Jenkins, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Glenarden on the Kettering spent to force me to stop using my domain name www.fbcglenarden.com

It’s a long decision though it does have some interesting parts in it. One of them is the fact the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) found it troubling that First Baptist Church of Glenarden took FOUR YEARS to protest my use of the domain name. Another is this statement by WIPO:

The site’s content is plainly not obscene. This Panel is incapable of determining whether its content is defamatory, though on its face it appears not to be. Many elements necessary to establish the intentional tort of defamation are far beyond the scope of this proceeding: factual bases for statements made, whether Complainant’s pastor is a public figure who would thus be required to prove actual malice, the extent to which Respondent’s commentary is opinion, among many others.

It also seems kind of interesting that rather than doing the right thing and counseling my wife, John K. Jenkins, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Glenarden on the Kettering, first insisted I apologize to HIM for publicly stating the reasons I was leaving, reasons he agreed were accurate. Then, after nearly four and a half years of supposedly ignoring me, he spends several thousands of dollars to, in effect, force me to surrender a domain name. My brother is a lawyer who has had dealings with the law firm John K. Jenkins, the pastor of…well, you know the rest, used to file the case. I’m sure it cost him more to file the case than he would have lost by telling my wife to leave. And that’s even if she had left.

It seems he is interested in spending time and money worrying about me but he doesn’t have the time, and isn’t willing to do without the income from a woman he knows he should counsel to leave. Interestingly enough, she doesn’t give anything to the church now anyway.

But that’s okay. Even if he had decided to do the right thing, and I had hit upon the idea of the website, I would likely still have included him. As I have often said before, my disagreement with John K. Jenkins, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Glenarden on the Kettering, is not personal. I’m just more familiar with his pimping ways and bad doctrine because I been able to see them up close and experience them first hand. Besides, his actions so clearly exhibited the characteristics of the men we often refer to as “pimps”.

Thanks to Honor Roll for spotting this and bringing it to my attention.

The decision of WIPO follows:

WIPO
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
The First Baptist Church of Glenarden v. Melvin Jones
Case No. D2009-0022

1. The Parties

Complainant is The First Baptist Church of Glenarden, Maryland, United States of America (“United States” or “U.S.”), represented by the law firm Holland & Knight, LLP, United States.

Respondent is Melvin Jones, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania or Bowie, Maryland, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 9, 2009. On January 12, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 13, 2009, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 20, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was

February 9, 2009. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 10, 2009.

The Center appointed Richard G. Lyon as the sole panelist in this matter on

February 20, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted his Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant is a Baptist congregation that has operated in Maryland since 1917. Today Complainant occupies two campuses and has over 10,000 active members. In addition to Sunday worship services (some of which are broadcast by cable television, by radio, and on the Internet) Complainant provides to its members and its community other religious, educational, and pastoral services, and operates various outreach and missionary programs. Complainant’s principal website is . Complainant does not allege ownership of any registered trademarks, but claims common law rights in “First Baptist Church of Glenarden” and “FBC Glenarden” by virtue of its extensive and continuous use of these names to provide its services to its parishioners and to the public.

Respondent is a former member of Complainant’s congregation, leaving Complainant’s church after various disputes with the pastor. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in January 2005, about the time he departed the flock. An Internet user who enters the disputed domain name into a browser is automatically redirected to Respondent’s site at “www.pulpit-pimps.org”. At this site Respondent includes articles and comments critical of organized religion in general and various Christian dominations in particular, and concerning religion and politics in American society. This website contains archived articles and a number of links to other noncommercial and religious-related topics. One link is to a page on which Respondent’s subject is Complainant’s pastor. Many of the pages on this website include a forum for members of the public to post comments, an opportunity apparently seized frequently. Respondent’s website has no commercial content or commercial links.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows:

Complainant has common law rights in “First Baptist Church of Glenarden” and “FBC Glenarden” by virtue of continuous and extensive use of these terms for the services it provides. Common law rights are sufficient to invoke the Policy. The disputed domain name is identical to the latter of these marks and confusingly similar to the former, as FBC is a frequent and well-recognized abbreviation for “First Baptist Church.”

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its name or mark. Respondent has never been known, individually or as a business, by “FBC Glenarden” or “First Baptist Church Glenarden.” Respondent has used the disputed domain name to divert Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent’s website that is not legitimate or bona fide under the Policy. Nor is it legitimate noncommercial or fair use of Complainant’s mark, as its sole purpose is “resentment against and desire to exact vengeance upon Complainant’s pastor in connection with [Respondent’s personal grievances],” which is not legitimate under the Policy. Furthermore, “Respondent, despite his religious hubris, has no right to register and use confusingly similar domain names as a tactic.”

Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, for the same reasons as Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. “Respondent’s motive is of “crucial importance” to determining whether the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith, “ and “ it is well settled that the domain name registration and use motivated by Respondent’s resentment, desire for vengeance or “indignation” is bad faith registration and use.”
B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Jurisdiction

In any default case the Panel must review the record to “ensure that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case”. Here the Center’s records reflect that it properly discharged the requirements of Rules paragraph 2(a), so there is no question as to the Panel’s jurisdiction.

B. Effect of Respondent’s Default

Unlike civil litigation in the United States, failure to respond in a Policy proceeding does not constitute an admission of any pleaded matter or result in the Policy equivalent of a default judgment. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview”), paragraph 4.6; Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. The Panel will proceed to evaluate Complainant’s evidence, and his own examination of Respondent’s website, against the requirements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Common law rights will suffice to invoke the Policy, and Complainant has provided ample evidence of use of both “First Baptist Church of Glenarden” and “FBC Glenarden” as identifiers of its services. Furthermore, Respondent as a former congregant of Complainant was well aware of Complainant and its marks when he registered the disputed domain name. The Panel agrees with Complainant that “FBC” is a common abbreviation for “First Baptist Church” in the United States, so for purposes of the Policy the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

D. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent’s website, to which the disputed domain name resolves, is a criticism site that raises issues of free speech under the United States Constitution. Particularly is that so in light of the political, social, and religious nature of the topics discussed; this kind of speech is entitled to special protection under American Constitutional law. The Panel may not sidestep these issues merely because Complainant finds the site’s content vulgar or offensive, or because Respondent may have registered and used the site to air a personal grievance or, to use a Biblical phrase, to wreak vengeance upon Complainant. The Constitution’s free speech guaranties extend beyond elegant and temperate prose, stopping only when the speech is defamatory or obscene.

The site’s content is plainly not obscene. This Panel is incapable of determining whether its content is defamatory, though on its face it appears not to be. Many elements necessary to establish the intentional tort of defamation are far beyond the scope of this proceeding: factual bases for statements made, whether Complainant’s pastor is a public figure who would thus be required to prove actual malice, the extent to which Respondent’s commentary is opinion, among many others. It is difficult to imagine how these complicated factual and legal issues could ever be adequately developed in an abbreviated Policy proceeding. These are matters for a court, not a UDRP panel.

For the same reasons the Panel has no way to judge Respondent’s “motive”, and will not presume to do so solely on unsubstantiated allegations or the Panel’s own opinions drawn from Respondent’s website.1

The issue though is not motive or the truth or falsity of Respondent’s comments, but Respondent’s entitlement to use Complainant’s mark as his website address. That subject in criticism cases continues to vex courts and UDRP panels alike. The WIPO Overview (paragraph 2.4) has no consensus or majority view on whether criticism constitutes “a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue,” Policy, paragraph 4(c)(iii):

In the event that a domain name confusingly similar to a trademark is being used for a genuine noncommercial free speech web site, there are two main views. There is also some division between proceedings involving U.S. parties and proceedings involving non-U.S. parties, with few non-U.S. panelists adopting the reasoning in View 2.

“View 1: The right to criticize does not extend to registering a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s registered trademark or conveys an association with the mark.

View 2: Irrespective of whether the domain name as such connotes criticism, the respondent has a legitimate interest in using the trademark as part of the domain name of a criticism site if the use is fair and non-commercial.”

This Panel has consistently adhered to View 1 when, as here, the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark. E.g., Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumi, WIPO Case No. D2006-1627; InMed Diagnostic Services, LLC, InMed Diagnostic Services of S.C., LLC, InMed Diagnostic Services of MA, LLC and InMed Diagnostic Services of IL, LLC v. James Harrison, WIPO Case No. D2006-1230; Texans For Lawsuit Reform, Inc. v. Kelly Fero, WIPO Case No. D2004-0778; Justice for Children v. R neetso / Robert W. O’Steen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0175. In so doing this Panel has emphasized the rationale of the “initial interest confusion” doctrine, as View 1 has occasionally been referred to in the courts. As stated in the Dello Russo case, supra, in language that applies with equal force here:

“Respondent’s selection of Complainant’s name for her criticism site allows her to make use of Complainant’s service mark in a manner that would lead an ordinary Internet user initially to believe that Respondent was Complainant or that Respondent had Complainant’s permission to distribute her message. Such use is not legitimate under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, and the safe harbor of paragraph 4(c)(iii) is not available because Respondent undeniably intended ‘to misleadingly divert consumers’.”

The present case illustrates very well why applying the initial interest confusion doctrine will not interfere in any way with Respondent’s vigorous exercise of his free speech rights on the Internet. This decision will not require Respondent to change one word of the content of his principal site (including his statements about Complainant), and will not require Respondent to move that content to a new web address. Respondent’s current site will proceed exactly as it does now. Respondent does not post any content at the domain name that incorporates Complainant’s mark; copying Complainant’s mark is not used for free speech, indeed for any speech at all. All commentary may be found at Respondent’s principal website, “www.pulpit-pimps.org”. Rather than using the disputed domain name as a forum for criticism of Complainant or its pastor Respondent uses it only to attract, then immediately divert, individuals searching for Complainant.

Preventing such an appropriation of another’s asset intentionally to mislead is precisely why the Policy was adopted. As the Panel pointed out in Justice for Children v. R neetso / Robert W. O’Steen, supra (emphasis in original):

“Decisions under the Policy focus upon a respondent’s use of another’s mark in a domain name to attract Internet users to respondent’s site. This is true in typosquatting cases and in cases where a respondent selected his domain name in anticipation of subsequent sale to the mark owner. The content of Respondent’s sites in these two categories of cases in which respondents almost uniformly lose is irrelevant to the harm to the mark owner and to the unwary consumer. That harm results from the confusion caused by the initial attraction to the site by means of borrowing the complainant’s mark. And that is exactly the harm the Policy was adopted to address.

[…] By intentionally selecting Complainant’s mark to present his views, he has not made a legitimate use of the domain names.”

One final issue, a matter left open in Justice for Children, remains for consideration. Respondent has been operating his website since early 2005, and the blog features there have attracted many comments from the public. A four-year delay is particularly troubling given the political, religious, and social commentary on Respondent’s website. The public postings are evidence that some individuals who share Respondent’s views have come to rely upon his site as a guidon for their position and advocacy. Facilitating communication among like-minded individuals, after all, is one of the Internet’s great benefits (as well as a highly effective means of its promoting free speech and political activity).

Neither laches nor estoppel is a defense to a Policy proceeding, but continuous use may allow a respondent to establish that he has “been commonly known by the domain name, even if [he has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights” in it, Policy, paragraph 4(c)(ii). When as here the site’s content raises First Amendment issues the Panel is especially concerned about third party reliance. Had Respondent used the disputed domain name itself for his criticism site this would raise a difficult issue. But that domain name is used only to redirect, so any reliance is on “www.pulpit-pimps.org” and not the disputed domain name. As noted this decision affects not at all the content of, public interest in, or web address of what appears to be Respondent’s main website.

The Panel therefore finds that Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

E. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

For similar reasons the Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. By analogy to the typosquatting cases, where bad faith is presumed from the intentional similarity to the Complainant’s mark, Respondent’s registration and continued use were undertaken intentionally and expressly to disrupt Complainant’s activities to expand the audience for his criticism by misleading Internet users as to the “source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement” of his website, by means of the initial confusion discussed in the preceding section.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name , be transferred to Complainant.

Richard G. Lyon

Sole Panelist

Dated: February 26, 2009

1 The cases cited by Complainant in support of its contention that motive is “crucial” in Policy determinations lend scant support to that argument. The only mention of “vengeance” or “motive” in Kingspan Group Plc and Kingspan Access Floors Limited v. Mark Thomas, WIPO Case No. D2005-0320, is in the panel’s discussion of complainant’s contentions; its decision on the merits took no account of motive. The panel in O2 Centro Wellness, S.L. v. DOMAIN DROP, S.A., WIPO Case No. D2006-1469, while noting that vengeance was not by itself a legitimate use, had found the content on the website disparaging, and decided the case on grounds similar to those adopted by the Panel here (“Freedom of speech does not imply that Respondent may register Complainant’s mark as a domain name.”).

Perhaps because “bad faith” in everyday English connotes a particular state of mind panels may be tempted to judge a party’s (complainant’s or respondent’s) “motive” in evaluating the merits. Bad faith in a Policy proceeding, however, should be judged to the extent possible on a party’s conduct as shown by the objective evidence, with conduct judged against the language in the Policy as developed in Policy proceedings and not a panel’s subjective opinion of the party’s “motive.” As this Panel sees it, a pure heart will not excuse conduct that violates the language of the Policy, nor will an admitted vendetta mandate a finding of bad faith until each applicable Policy criterion has been proven.

Pulpit Pimps | 31 Comments »

Ladies and gentlemen I’ve decided I’ve got to get my “A” game on.

I’m still driving my 1987 Honda Accord (I just got the hood fixed two years after it got hit). I still only have three suits (two of them are over eight years old). And I’ve lived in the same three bedroom house with four children, and a single car garage since 1985.

I still work a 9 to 5 job that requires me to spend two hours commuting every day. And I know, to the penny, my water bill, my electric bill, the amount of gas my Honda uses and my grocery bill. And I know when all of my bills are due.

If I had my “A” game going, I’d be much better off. I could snag something like the following:

1. An annual total compensation package of $600,000
2. A base salary of $250,000
3. A housing allowance of $11,5000/month ($138,000/year)
4. Money for other stuff ($600k-$388k = $212k/year) to include tuition for private school for my kids, a full-time maid, and an equity allowance so I can save up to buy a house.

If I had my “A” game on, I could be just like Brad Braxton, the pastor of Riverside Baptist Church in New York who got exactly the compensation package I just outlined. He even has a couple of old ladies defending his compensation.

I guess I’m just a slacker. I mean, I have all the parts in place. I started my own church, the Praise Immanuel Mighty Prince (PIMP) Temple. And I’m the bishop/pastor/elder so once we start raking in the bucks I should be able to arrange a large cut of the income for me. Afterall, I hired an accountant who barely avoided going to jail when the jury was deadlocked on an embezzling charge against him. I have a knock out Praise team headed by former exotic dancer Vickie “Boom Boom” Parker. And I have an armor bearer who, if he keeps his nose clean, should be able to stay out of prison - as long as he doesn’t assault anyone else during his probation.

All I have to figure out is how best to accomplish the following:

1. Promoting condoms to curb AIDS in Africa
2. Reforming immigration policy – letting even more ILLEGAL aliens in and make them citizens (and Democrats)
3. Supporting and implementing same sex marriage, not fighting it

These are the items Reverend Braxton is pushing. And most of the congregation seems to have no real problem with it. I figure if I avoid actually teaching or preaching the Bible, I should be able to promote the same programs with no real problem. And if I can promote this kind of policy, I should be able to get lots of people to join the PIMP Temple. If I get lots of people in, that means I get more money. Braxton did it with 2,500 members. I should be able to double that crowd in almost no time. From what I remember, Boom Boom could really draw a crowd when she was working it in Baltimore. And if I tell folks what they want to hear, that makes it even better.

I gotta get my “A” game on. I can almost feel the SR22’s left control stick right now. And all I have to do is sell the rest of my soul.

But seriously folks: this guy and guys like him are nothing but hired hands, in it for the pay. The first time things get tough and being a social Christian becomes less than fashionable, this guy will either get saved and hunker down or bolt, leaving what few sheep may be among the goats to fend for themselves.

And we won’t even talk about the fact that some of the church members have filed suit to prevent the reverend from getting the heavenly stimulus package.

(MN: A late tip o’the hat to Ryan for bring this guy to my attention. )

Christian Living, Pulpit Pimps | 21 Comments »

As you all may well know, I greatly dislike computers. I view them first and foremost as minions of Satan, existing mainly to make my life miserable.

Case in point, my external hard drive just crapped out, trapping all my files in a nether land I can’t quite get to. Of course, I set up the external drive so I would not have to go through a lot of hassle if my operating system went haywire (which, of course, it is in the process of doing) because I would have all my day to day files on the external.

So the external drive ends up going spastic and apparently shutting down on me.

I do so hate computers.

Any of you WoFers out there want to speak things that aren’t as though they are? You know, something like “I speak a fully operating hard drive back into existence, one that has twice the memory of the one that crapped out.” Or something like that.

Pulpit Pimps | 24 Comments »

I got Shingles. For those of you who don’t know what it is, think of it as a second helping of Chicken Pox, a very painful second helping of Chicken Pox, emphasizing the “pox” part. I can tell you from personal experience when someone declares a pox upon you and your family, he means for you to be hurting.

But even with this, I have to say that all comes from the hand of God, either for correction, for training, or for strengthening. While it hurts and makes it very difficult for me to concentrate (excruciating pain usually has that effect on me), it forces me to lean on Jesus Christ and His power in my life (1 Cor 12:9-10).

Hey, I’ve used up most of my leave (I only have three days left) and that will disappear as soon as I move to the new Company. Oh. Didn’t I tell you? The company I work for declared bankruptcy and sold the segment I work for to another company. I start more or less from scratch on Monday, 11 May 2009. Oh, and I have to change health care plans, which means I’ll no longer be able to use Kaiser. Of course some of you think that’s a good thing. But my wife likes the neurologist she visits.

Why am I telling you about all these things? Obviously it gives the WoFers out there a chance to start nattering on about God repaying me for my evil ways, putting my moutn on the Mend and Womend of Gawd and all. But I’m sure most of you see God as much bigger than that. And I hope they will too.

One of the Reformed confessions says:

God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge, and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.

In other words, all things that “befall” me are ultimately to the glory of God and I am to rejoice (Heb 1:2-4) in them.

Of course, if you’re the average sheeple, you jump up and start telling the Devil he’s a liar (something he already knows). Either that or you will start stomping on Satan’s head. You’ll natter on about “not receiving that illness” even as you scurry to the clinic to get your medicines. And all the while missing the benefits of God’s hand in your life, and on your life. But most importantly, you will be calling God a liar. He says He brings these things in our lives for our good. You say they are tricks of the devil. Which one of you do you think is right? God or you?

Of course, when I think about Josh’s mom, shingles seems pretty trivial. I’m going to get over this in about a week, a painful week, but a week none the less. And should the anti-viral work the way it is supposed to, I will be left with nothing but some minor scarring on my back and the unpleasant memory of my left side being sporadically flooded with pain. I have my meds and they only cost $30 (plus my monthly membership fee, or course). She is spending thousands of dollars to survive and will spend years recovering. And even then she will never be back to where she was.

And speaking of Josh’s mom, think about helping him out some more. This is an opportunity for you to do more than pay a weekly tithe bill. And since you’ll get zero recognition for it, the giving can only be from a pure motive. Go back, click on the link, and send them some money. If you don’t I will declare a pox upon you and your family.

Pulpit Pimps | 104 Comments »

E-mails are a wonderful thing. The pimps use them to get their messages and appeals out to the sheeple. But in the process, they end up sending me information about their latest…uh…ministries. Yeah. That’s what they are. Ministries.

Of course Junie B is no different. In fact, when you consider what she has done to take advantage of the internet while taking advantage of some of the poor dumb sheeple, I wouldn’t expect her to do any less than use all of today’s communications tools to communicate with us.

Just the other day, I got an e-mail from Junie B. I also got a forwarded copy from one of the readers. Here is the headline for the e-mail.

Yep. Junie B has often spoken a little about having a “Prophetic Ministry” (whatever that is), but for the first time, we get a prophecy from the girl. And like most of the Word of Faith, or at least like the folks they associate with (remember, I.V. and company gave Junie B the money to pay the taxes on one of her structures) the prophecies never tell us what we’re doing wrong.

She has, I believe, also been one of the featured speakers at one of Mrs. Hilliard’s Women of Something of the Other conferences. But now, thanks to a commercial organization called “Black Gospel Promotions,” Junie B is able to get the message out that God has a word for you

And in order to give it the full force it deserves, to make sure you have the respect for the prophetic message from this woman of God (who sometimes gets a little too close when she gets in someone’s face) I put it in a format I’m sure will result in the awe and respect I suspect she wants the sheeple to exhibit. Click here and you can see a portion of it. It’s a PDF so give it a moment to download.

If you want a copy of the entire book, send $25 to:

The Praise Immanuel Mighty Prince Temple of Wonderful and Magnificent Happenings
Promote the Prophet Ministries
12456 Anathema Lane
Bowie, MD 20567

Or just click here.

But whatever you do, make sure you don’t delay getting your hands on this powerfully anointed spiritual resource. Read it once and it’ll change your life…and get me that much closer to getting me…or rather…getting the P.I.M.P. Ministries that SR22 God has promised us if you are faithful.

Pulpit Pimps | 28 Comments »