¿Qué es una marca?
Hay mucha confusión en torno a esta cuestión dentro de la comunidad sannyas. Esta confusión se ha creado en parte por diversas reclamaciones que se están realizando acerca de lo que es una marca comercial y lo que hace. La verdad es que muy pocas personas, incluso muchos abogados, realmente entienden exactamente lo que es una marca, cómo funciona y cómo alguien llega a poseer el derecho a utilizarla, así que es muy fácil para las personas ser confundidas y engañadas. Vamos a comprender este problema mediante la búsqueda de respuestas a algunas preguntas básicas, que son las siguientes.
¿Cómo es una marca definida y explicada?
* Una marca es válida sólo si el propietario tiene el derecho exclusivo a utilizar la marca para determinados productos y servicios en el mercado.
¿Qué no es una marca?
* Si otras personas tienen los mismos derechos de uso de la palabra, símbolo, o la imagen, entonces la palabra, símbolo, o la imagen no puede ser una marca. La razón de esto es que si varias personas tienen derecho a usarla, la palabra, símbolo, imagen no puede decirle al público que los productos o servicios cumplen las normas de calidad de una sola fuente. Una marca no es principalmente un derecho de propiedad de una empresa.
¿Qué es una marca?
* El propósito de una marca es ante todo para proteger el derecho del público a saber acerca de la calidad. Una marca es una palabra, frase, símbolo o imagen que se utiliza en la comercialización de un producto o servicio. La marca que permita identificar el producto o servicio como procedente de una única fuente. Además, la propiedad de una marca no da la propiedad del contenido del producto o servicio.
¿La palabra Osho puede ser utilizado como una marca?
* Osho sólo puede ser una marca si una persona jurídica (empresa o persona) tiene el derecho legal para el control de todos los bienes y servicios relacionados con las enseñanzas de Osho a fin de que cada vez que el público ve "Osho" conectado a los bienes o servicios que se sabe que los productos o servicios proceden de una sola fuente y que la única fuente que garantiza una cierta calidad.
* Sin embargo, esa fuente no puede ser Osho, ya muchas otras personas además de Osho han sido implicados en la creación de bienes y servicios relacionados con su trabajo. Además, Osho nunca cedió sus derechos a nadie, por lo que si es la fuente de Osho, nadie es dueño de la marca.
¿Qué se está reclamado en virtud de Osho como una marca?
* Los libros y grabaciones de audio y vídeo. Además, todas las actividades de los centros Osho. Estas clases incluyen la meditación, las sesiones y eventos; la celebración de eventos, eventos musicales, grupos de períodos de sesiones; carrocería, restaurantes, libros de Osho, periódicos, revistas y cualquier otra actividad de negocios llevada a cabo bajo el nombre de Osho. También estamos hablando de todas las actividades de las personas incluidas clases, reuniones, espectáculos, seminarios, grupos, discos, vídeos, libros, etc que se comercializan con el nombre de Osho.
¿Quién reclama Osho como una marca?
* La entidad que está reclamando la propiedad de la marca de Osho (en la mayor parte del mundo) es Osho International Foundation (OIF), un pequeño grupo legal con sede en Zurich, Suiza, a pesar de que la OIF sólo tiene una dirección de correo allí. La meditación no son las actividades llevadas a cabo por la OIF en Zurich.
¿Es la reivindicación de Osho como una marca por la OIF válida?
* Con el fin de la OIF, Zurich a la propiedad de la marca se ha de afirmar que es la fuente de todos los bienes y servicios relacionados con el trabajo de Osho y que legalmente controla todos los productos y servicios producidos por los centros de Osho y las personas que utilizan "Osho ".
* OIF ha de reclamar legalmente el control de cada aspecto de la labor realizada utilizando el nombre de Osho. A la propiedad de la marca de Osho, la OIF tendría que ser capaz de garantizar al público que todos estos bienes y servicios que responden a una determinada calidad.
* Si no puede legalmente OIF controlar todos los centros de Osho y las personas que utilizan Osho, OIF si no es la fuente de los bienes y servicios producidos por los centros y las personas, la OIF y si no puede garantizar la calidad de todos los bienes y servicios de los centros y las personas de Osho, entonces Osho no puede ser una marca registrada de la OIF.
* Si los centros y las personas son independientes y producen sus propios bienes y servicios, entonces Osho es un término que indica una conexión con el nombre de Osho, pero nunca puede ser una marca para una empresa o persona.
* Al presentar el registro de una marca OIF no obtiene la propiedad de los bienes y servicios creados por los centros o particulares. Los propios centros y las personas que lo han creado y tendrán que ceder sus derechos a la OIF legalmente antes de la OIF pueda controlarlos. La OIF está esencialmente exigiendo que los centros que hacer, o, para ser exactos, está reclamando los centros y ya lo han hecho.
¿Por qué y para qué fin esencialmente Osho se reivindica como una marca?
* El problema de Osho como marca es esencialmente sobre el control de la independencia o de los centros de Osho y los individuos.
¿Osho nunca estuvo a favor de ejercer ese control?
* La idea de que el trabajo de Osho sea estrictamente controlada como una forma de comercialización es, sin duda, de algunas personas por la idea de la seguridad, pero ciertamente no es la de Osho.
* A la luz de las enseñanzas de Osho, por ejemplo, un control centralizado significa una "madre iglesia" que existen estrictamente todos los controles de los trabajos en torno a las enseñanzas de Osho, una madre iglesia que dicta el dogma y la doctrina, que interpreta la madre iglesia las enseñanzas de Osho en términos de pureza. Centros con licencia no se permitirían ningún producto o servicio sin recibir el permiso de la OIF, y teniendo en el servicio o producto aprobado para su "pureza".
¿Cómo ayuda o lastima seguir esto en el caso de centros de la OIF?
* Mientras que algunos centros individuales están dispuestos a defender a la OIF y de insistir en que se mantiene independiente, como Osho ha pedido que sean, la OIF no es probable que prevalezca en reclamar la propiedad de los derechos exclusivos de uso como marca de Osho. Incluso si una marca comercial es propiedad de la OIF, los centros pueden optar por seguir siendo independientes.
* El peligro es que los centros que cooperan con la OIF y el apoyo de la reclamación de la OIF a la propiedad de una marca, o que no se opone cuando están informados de lo que está reclamando la OIF, acabará jurídico y financiero controlado por la OIF. Los centros que de pie a la OIF puede seguir siendo independiente.
* La elección de acuerdo a si debe ser jurídica y económicamente controlada por la OIF corresponde a cada centro.
¿Cuáles son las directrices de Osho? ¿Cómo ver que sus palabras y meditaciones llegar a la gente?
* Aquí están las propias palabras de Osho dando un mensaje claro:
"Yo no puedo verte dependiente. Yo no puedo verlos siendo acosados, torturados, ordenado, a obedecer-no. Por lo tanto, yo os digo: Mi forma de vida no es una religión. Es sin duda una especie de religiosidad. Para ser religioso sin estar conectado a una religión es la más hermosa experiencia de vida. A continuación, la religiosidad es una cualidad, no una fe ".
OSHO De la servidumbre a la Libertad, Capítulo 15, la pregunta 2
“I cannot see you dependent. I cannot see you being harassed, tortured, ordered, made to obey—no. Hence, I say to you: My way of life is not a religion. It is certainly a kind of religiousness. To be religious without being attached to a religion is the most beautiful experience of life. Then religiousness is a quality, not a faith”.
OSHO
From Bondage to Freedom, Chapter 15, Question 2
OSHO
From Bondage to Freedom, Chapter 15, Question 2
"El mundo será sede de la publicación de mis libros, harán la realización de mis cintas, cintas de vídeo, se hace todo tipo de trabajo. Pero no tiene dominio sobre alguien. Todos las comunas del mundo son independientes. Todos los centros del mundo son absolutamente libres. Están bajo la guía de nadie. Mi sannyasins están directamente relacionadas con mi persona. La sede mundial tiene una función simplemente para que tú puedas tener una relación conmigo. En caso contrario, no tienen ningún lugar al que pedir a donde estoy, lo que me está sucediendo a mí. La sede mundial no es en modo alguno un poder sobre cualquier sannyasin, sobre cualquier otro centros sannyas, ashramas, comunas. No tiene nada que ver con eso. Es mi secretaría. Y su función es transmitirme los mensajes de importancia para mi y que transmita a los sannyasins mis mensajes de importancia para alguien. No se trata de una organización. No se trata de una estructura. Es simplemente una oficina funcional ".
OSHO The Last Testament, Vol. 5, Chapter 12
“The world headquarters will be publishing my books, will be releasing my tapes, videotapes, will be doing every kind of work. But it has no domination over anybody. All communes of the world are independent. All centers of the world are absolutely free. They are under nobody’s guidance. My sannyasins are directly related to me. The world headquarters will simply function so that you can have a connection with me. Otherwise you don’t have any place to whom to ask where I am, what is happening to me. The world headquarters is not in any way a power over any sannyasin, over any other sannyas centers, ashramas, communes. It has nothing to do with that. It is my secretariat. And its function is to convey to me messages of importance and to convey to the sannyasins my messages of any importance to anybody. It is not an organization. It is not a structure. It is simply a functional office”.
OSHO The Last Testament, Vol. 5, Chapter 12
OSHO The Last Testament, Vol. 5, Chapter 12
¿Por qué una marca?
¿Puede una marca realmente "proteger" el trabajo de Osho?
* La respuesta es no. Una marca es un derecho de uso de una palabra, frase, símbolo o imagen en la comercialización. No tiene nada que ver con el contenido del producto o servicio que se comercializa. Una marca tiene que titular el propio producto o servicio antes de su comercialización de una marca puede ser aplicado al producto o servicio en el mercado. Una marca no da a nadie el derecho de propiedad en cualquier producto o servicio que el titular de la marca ya no cuenta.
¿Pueden las técnicas de meditación de Osho de ser protegidos por una marca?
* Una marca no tienen nada que ver con la forma en que el control de técnicas de meditación se utilizan bien. Vatayana envió un correo electrónico a los centros de hace unos meses que era muy engañoso. Dijo que las marcas eran necesarias para mantener el meditaciones "24 quilates". Esto no tiene ningún sentido en absoluto.
* Osho a sabiendas y voluntariamente puso sus técnicas de meditación en el dominio público hace décadas no sólo permitir, sino fomentar, a la gente a utilizar sus técnicas y para enseñarles a otros.
* Osho quería que las técnicas se pusiesen a disposición de tantas personas como sea posible, y las personas tomaron las técnicas de Osho y la difusión por todo el mundo. Osho porque decidieron hacerlo con sus propias técnicas, que en esencia se convirtió en propiedad pública desde hace mucho tiempo. OIF no es propietaria de las técnicas de meditación de Osho, y los EE.UU. Oficina de Patentes y Marcas lo saben.
¿Alguien puede proteger de técnicas de meditación de Osho?
* Nadie puede "proteger" las técnicas de meditación de Osho en esta último tiempo, porque nadie las posee. Osho, por su propia elección, dio a la basura. Usted podría decir que a la existencia en libertad. Él confía en que, obviamente, no necesitan las técnicas de protección en forma de control legal, porque él hizo todo lo posible para asegurarse de que nunca pasase.
* Las técnicas de meditación han sido de dominio público desde 30-40 años hasta ahora, y no hay manera que alguien pueda tener la propiedad legal de estas técnicas fuera de la opinión pública.
* Marcas de los nombres de las técnicas no permiten la OIF para controlar cómo alguien utiliza estas técnicas. Por lo tanto, si cualquier centro es de la idea de que podría sacrificar su independencia y autonomía en aras de la protección de la técnicas de meditación de Osho, ese esfuerzo sería completamente en vano.
¿Es el derecho de autor diferente de las marcas?
* El contenido de los libros y grabaciones, por ejemplo, están protegidos por derechos de autor, que son muy diferentes tipo de derecho de propiedad intelectual. Si alguien reclamaba a Osho como los escritos de su propia o el mal uso de las grabaciones, este sería un problema de derechos de autor. Ser propietario de una marca que no tienen nada que ver con la forma en que el contenido de la labor de Osho se utiliza.
¿El poseedor de una marca puede impedir que la gente hable de él o escriba sobre él?
* Por supuesto que no. Una marca que consiste en el nombre (o seudónimo, en este caso) de una persona histórica no tiene nada que ver con el control de la persona histórica o su patrimonio o reputación. Una marca de "Osho" no es sobre la persona de Osho. Una marca de "Osho" no da al titular de la marca derechos sobre la persona de Osho en absoluto.
* Todos los países donde las marcas de Osho han sido reclamadas tienen leyes que protegen la libertad de prensa y la libertad de expresión. Periodistas, escritores, editores, comentaristas y otros pueden decir lo que gustan de las personas, siempre y cuando no violen las leyes de difamación, responsabilidad, y la difamación.
* Marcas de leyes nunca se usan para limitar la libertad de prensa o la libertad de expresión. En la cultura moderna, si no nos gusta lo que alguien dice tenemos el derecho de réplica y el debate. No tenemos el poder para acallar las opiniones de los demás. Esto no es acerca de las marcas.
What is a Trademark?
There is a lot of confusion around this question within the sannyas community. This confusion has been created partly because of various claims being made about what a trademark is and what it does. The truth is that very few people, even many attorneys, really understand exactly what a trademark is, how it works, and how someone comes to own the right to use one, so it’s very easy for people to be confused and misled. Let us understand this issue by finding answers to some basic questions, which are as follows.
How is a Trademark defined and explained?
* A trademark is valid only if the owner has the exclusive right to use the mark for certain goods and services in the marketplace.
What a Trademark is not?
* If other people have equal rights to use the word, symbol, or image, then the word, symbol, or image cannot be a trademark. The reason for this is that if several people have a right to use it, the word, symbol, or image can’t tell the public that the goods or services meet the quality standards of a single source. A trademark is not primarily a property right of a company.
What a Trademark is?
* The very purpose of a trademark is first and foremost to protect the public’s right to know about quality. A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, or image that is used in marketing a product or service. The mark has to identify the product or service as coming from a single source. Also, ownership of a trademark does not give ownership of the content of the product or service.
Can the word Osho be used as a Trademark?
* Osho can only be a trademark if one legal entity (person or company) has the legal right to control all goods and services related to Osho’s teachings so that whenever the public sees “Osho” connected to goods or services it will know that the goods or services come from a single source and that that single source guarantees a certain quality.
* However, that source can’t be Osho, since many other people besides Osho have long been involved in creating goods and services related to His work. Also, Osho never assigned His rights to anyone else, so if Osho is the source, no one owns the trademark.
What is being claimed under Osho as a Trademark?
* Books and audio and video recordings. Also, all the activities of Osho centers. These include meditation classes, sessions, and events; celebration events; music events; groups; sessions; bodywork; restaurants; books about Osho; newspapers; magazines; and any other business activities carried on under the name of Osho. We are also talking about all activities of individuals including classes, sessions, performances, seminars, groups, CDs, videos, books, and so on that are marketed using the name Osho.
Who is claiming Osho as a Trademark?
* The entity that is claiming to own the trademark for Osho (in most of the world) is Osho International Foundation (OIF), a small group legally based in Zurich, Switzerland, though OIF has only a mail-drop address there. No meditation activities are conducted by OIF in Zurich.
Is the claiming of Osho as a Trademark by OIF valid?
* In order for OIF, Zurich to own the trademark it has to claim that it is the source of all goods and services connected to Osho’s work and that it legally controls all the goods and services produced by Osho centers and individuals using “Osho.”
* OIF has to claim to legally control every aspect of work done using Osho’s name. To own the trademark for Osho, OIF would have to be able to guarantee to the public that all these goods and services meet a certain quality.
* If OIF cannot legally control all Osho centers and individuals using Osho, if OIF is not the source of the goods and services produced by the centers and individuals, and if OIF cannot guarantee the quality of all the goods and services of the Osho centers and individuals, then Osho cannot be a trademark for OIF.
* If the centers and individuals are independent and produce their own goods and services, then Osho is a term indicating a connection to the man Osho, but it can never be a trademark for any one company or person.
* By filing to register a trademark OIF doesn’t get ownership of the goods and services created by centers or individuals. The centers and individuals own what they have created and would have to assign their rights to OIF before OIF could legally control them. OIF is essentially demanding that the centers do that, or, to be exact, is claiming the centers have already done that.
Why and for what purpose essentially is Osho being claimed as a Trademark?
* The issue of Osho as a trademark is essentially about control of or independence of the Osho centers and individuals.
Was Osho ever in favour of exercising such control?
* The idea of having Osho’s work tightly controlled as a form of commercialism is, no doubt, some people’s idea of safety, but it certainly isn’t Osho’s.
* In light of Osho’s teachings, such centralized control would mean that a “mother church” exists that strictly controls all of the work around Osho’s teachings, that a mother church dictates dogma and doctrine, that a mother church interprets Osho’s teachings in terms of purity. Licensed centers would not be allowed to produce any product or service without receiving permission from OIF and having the service or product approved for “purity.”
How would it help or hurt if centers follow OIF?
* As long as some centres and individual are willing to stand up to OIF and insist on being independent, as Osho has asked them to be, OIF is not likely to prevail in claiming to own exclusive rights to use Osho as a trademark. Even if OIF owned a trademark, centres that choose to can remain independent.
* The danger is that those centres that cooperate with OIF and support OIF’s claim to own a trademark, or that don’t object when they’re informed of what OIF is claiming, will end up legally and financially controlled by OIF. The centres that stand up to OIF can remain independent.
* The choice of whether to agree to be legally and financially controlled by OIF is up to each centre.
What are Osho’s guidelines? How did He see His words and meditations reach people?
* Here are Osho’s own words giving a clear message:
“I cannot see you dependent. I cannot see you being harassed, tortured, ordered, made to obey—no. Hence, I say to you: My way of life is not a religion. It is certainly a kind of religiousness. To be religious without being attached to a religion is the most beautiful experience of life. Then religiousness is a quality, not a faith”.
OSHO
From Bondage to Freedom, Chapter 15, Question 2
“The world headquarters will be publishing my books, will be releasing my tapes, videotapes, will be doing every kind of work. But it has no domination over anybody. All communes of the world are independent. All centers of the world are absolutely free. They are under nobody’s guidance. My sannyasins are directly related to me. The world headquarters will simply function so that you can have a connection with me. Otherwise you don’t have any place to whom to ask where I am, what is happening to me. The world headquarters is not in any way a power over any sannyasin, over any other sannyas centers, ashramas, communes. It has nothing to do with that. It is my secretariat. And its function is to convey to me messages of importance and to convey to the sannyasins my messages of any importance to anybody. It is not an organization. It is not a structure. It is simply a functional office”.
OSHO
The Last Testament, Vol. 5, Chapter 12
Why a Trademark?
Would a Trademark really “protect” Osho’s work?
* The answer is no. A trademark is a right to use a word, phrase, symbol, or image in marketing. It has nothing to do with the content of the product or service being marketed. A trademark holder has to own the product or service being marketed before a trademark can be applied to the product or service in the marketplace. A trademark doesn’t give anyone ownership rights in any product or service the trademark holder doesn’t already own.
Can Osho’s meditation techniques be protected by a Trademark?
* A trademark would have nothing to do with controlling how the meditation techniques are used either. Vatayana sent out an email to centers a few months ago that was very misleading. She said that trademarks were needed to keep the meditations “24 karat.” This makes no sense at all.
* Osho knowingly and willingly put His meditation techniques in the public domain decades ago by not only allowing, but encouraging, people to use His techniques and to teach them to others.
* Osho wanted the techniques made available to as many people as possible, and Osho’s people took those techniques and spread them around the world. Because Osho chose to do that with His own techniques, they became essentially public property long ago. OIF doesn’t own Osho’s meditation techniques, and the US Patent and Trademark Office know this.
Can anyone protect Osho’s meditation techniques?
* No one can “protect” Osho’s meditation techniques at this late date, because no one owns them. Osho, by His own choice, gave them away. You might say He released them to Existence. He obviously trusted that the techniques need no protection in the form of legal control, because He did everything to make sure that it never happened.
* The meditation techniques have been in the public domain since 30–40 years by now, and there’s no way for anyone to take legal ownership of those techniques away from the public.
* Trademarks for the names of the techniques would not allow OIF to control how anyone uses those techniques. So if any centre has the idea that it could sacrifice its independence and autonomy for the sake of protecting Osho’s meditation techniques, that effort would be entirely in vain.
Is copyright different from Trademark?
* The content of books and recordings, for example, are protected by copyrights, which are a very different kind of intellectual property right. If someone was claiming Osho’s writings as his own or misusing recordings, this would be a copyright issue. Owning a trademark would have nothing to do with how the content of Osho’s work is used.
Can a Trademark holder prevent people from talking about Him or writing about Him?
* Absolutely not. A trademark that consists of the name (or in this case pseudonym) of a historical person has nothing whatsoever to do with control of the historical person or his/her estate or reputation. A trademark for “Osho” is not about the person Osho. A trademark for “Osho” wouldn’t give the trademark holder any rights over Osho the person at all.
* All countries where Osho trademarks have been claimed have laws protecting the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Journalists, writers, publishers, and other commentators can say what they like about people as long as they don’t violate the laws of slander, liable, and defamation.
* Trademark laws are never used to limit freedom of the press or freedom of speech. In modern culture, if we don’t like what someone says we have the right to reply and debate. We don’t have the power to stifle the opinions of others. This isn’t what trademarks are about.
http://www.oshofriendsinternational.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=100&Itemid=187There is a lot of confusion around this question within the sannyas community. This confusion has been created partly because of various claims being made about what a trademark is and what it does. The truth is that very few people, even many attorneys, really understand exactly what a trademark is, how it works, and how someone comes to own the right to use one, so it’s very easy for people to be confused and misled. Let us understand this issue by finding answers to some basic questions, which are as follows.
How is a Trademark defined and explained?
* A trademark is valid only if the owner has the exclusive right to use the mark for certain goods and services in the marketplace.
What a Trademark is not?
* If other people have equal rights to use the word, symbol, or image, then the word, symbol, or image cannot be a trademark. The reason for this is that if several people have a right to use it, the word, symbol, or image can’t tell the public that the goods or services meet the quality standards of a single source. A trademark is not primarily a property right of a company.
What a Trademark is?
* The very purpose of a trademark is first and foremost to protect the public’s right to know about quality. A trademark is a word, phrase, symbol, or image that is used in marketing a product or service. The mark has to identify the product or service as coming from a single source. Also, ownership of a trademark does not give ownership of the content of the product or service.
Can the word Osho be used as a Trademark?
* Osho can only be a trademark if one legal entity (person or company) has the legal right to control all goods and services related to Osho’s teachings so that whenever the public sees “Osho” connected to goods or services it will know that the goods or services come from a single source and that that single source guarantees a certain quality.
* However, that source can’t be Osho, since many other people besides Osho have long been involved in creating goods and services related to His work. Also, Osho never assigned His rights to anyone else, so if Osho is the source, no one owns the trademark.
What is being claimed under Osho as a Trademark?
* Books and audio and video recordings. Also, all the activities of Osho centers. These include meditation classes, sessions, and events; celebration events; music events; groups; sessions; bodywork; restaurants; books about Osho; newspapers; magazines; and any other business activities carried on under the name of Osho. We are also talking about all activities of individuals including classes, sessions, performances, seminars, groups, CDs, videos, books, and so on that are marketed using the name Osho.
Who is claiming Osho as a Trademark?
* The entity that is claiming to own the trademark for Osho (in most of the world) is Osho International Foundation (OIF), a small group legally based in Zurich, Switzerland, though OIF has only a mail-drop address there. No meditation activities are conducted by OIF in Zurich.
Is the claiming of Osho as a Trademark by OIF valid?
* In order for OIF, Zurich to own the trademark it has to claim that it is the source of all goods and services connected to Osho’s work and that it legally controls all the goods and services produced by Osho centers and individuals using “Osho.”
* OIF has to claim to legally control every aspect of work done using Osho’s name. To own the trademark for Osho, OIF would have to be able to guarantee to the public that all these goods and services meet a certain quality.
* If OIF cannot legally control all Osho centers and individuals using Osho, if OIF is not the source of the goods and services produced by the centers and individuals, and if OIF cannot guarantee the quality of all the goods and services of the Osho centers and individuals, then Osho cannot be a trademark for OIF.
* If the centers and individuals are independent and produce their own goods and services, then Osho is a term indicating a connection to the man Osho, but it can never be a trademark for any one company or person.
* By filing to register a trademark OIF doesn’t get ownership of the goods and services created by centers or individuals. The centers and individuals own what they have created and would have to assign their rights to OIF before OIF could legally control them. OIF is essentially demanding that the centers do that, or, to be exact, is claiming the centers have already done that.
Why and for what purpose essentially is Osho being claimed as a Trademark?
* The issue of Osho as a trademark is essentially about control of or independence of the Osho centers and individuals.
Was Osho ever in favour of exercising such control?
* The idea of having Osho’s work tightly controlled as a form of commercialism is, no doubt, some people’s idea of safety, but it certainly isn’t Osho’s.
* In light of Osho’s teachings, such centralized control would mean that a “mother church” exists that strictly controls all of the work around Osho’s teachings, that a mother church dictates dogma and doctrine, that a mother church interprets Osho’s teachings in terms of purity. Licensed centers would not be allowed to produce any product or service without receiving permission from OIF and having the service or product approved for “purity.”
How would it help or hurt if centers follow OIF?
* As long as some centres and individual are willing to stand up to OIF and insist on being independent, as Osho has asked them to be, OIF is not likely to prevail in claiming to own exclusive rights to use Osho as a trademark. Even if OIF owned a trademark, centres that choose to can remain independent.
* The danger is that those centres that cooperate with OIF and support OIF’s claim to own a trademark, or that don’t object when they’re informed of what OIF is claiming, will end up legally and financially controlled by OIF. The centres that stand up to OIF can remain independent.
* The choice of whether to agree to be legally and financially controlled by OIF is up to each centre.
What are Osho’s guidelines? How did He see His words and meditations reach people?
* Here are Osho’s own words giving a clear message:
“I cannot see you dependent. I cannot see you being harassed, tortured, ordered, made to obey—no. Hence, I say to you: My way of life is not a religion. It is certainly a kind of religiousness. To be religious without being attached to a religion is the most beautiful experience of life. Then religiousness is a quality, not a faith”.
OSHO
From Bondage to Freedom, Chapter 15, Question 2
“The world headquarters will be publishing my books, will be releasing my tapes, videotapes, will be doing every kind of work. But it has no domination over anybody. All communes of the world are independent. All centers of the world are absolutely free. They are under nobody’s guidance. My sannyasins are directly related to me. The world headquarters will simply function so that you can have a connection with me. Otherwise you don’t have any place to whom to ask where I am, what is happening to me. The world headquarters is not in any way a power over any sannyasin, over any other sannyas centers, ashramas, communes. It has nothing to do with that. It is my secretariat. And its function is to convey to me messages of importance and to convey to the sannyasins my messages of any importance to anybody. It is not an organization. It is not a structure. It is simply a functional office”.
OSHO
The Last Testament, Vol. 5, Chapter 12
Why a Trademark?
Would a Trademark really “protect” Osho’s work?
* The answer is no. A trademark is a right to use a word, phrase, symbol, or image in marketing. It has nothing to do with the content of the product or service being marketed. A trademark holder has to own the product or service being marketed before a trademark can be applied to the product or service in the marketplace. A trademark doesn’t give anyone ownership rights in any product or service the trademark holder doesn’t already own.
Can Osho’s meditation techniques be protected by a Trademark?
* A trademark would have nothing to do with controlling how the meditation techniques are used either. Vatayana sent out an email to centers a few months ago that was very misleading. She said that trademarks were needed to keep the meditations “24 karat.” This makes no sense at all.
* Osho knowingly and willingly put His meditation techniques in the public domain decades ago by not only allowing, but encouraging, people to use His techniques and to teach them to others.
* Osho wanted the techniques made available to as many people as possible, and Osho’s people took those techniques and spread them around the world. Because Osho chose to do that with His own techniques, they became essentially public property long ago. OIF doesn’t own Osho’s meditation techniques, and the US Patent and Trademark Office know this.
Can anyone protect Osho’s meditation techniques?
* No one can “protect” Osho’s meditation techniques at this late date, because no one owns them. Osho, by His own choice, gave them away. You might say He released them to Existence. He obviously trusted that the techniques need no protection in the form of legal control, because He did everything to make sure that it never happened.
* The meditation techniques have been in the public domain since 30–40 years by now, and there’s no way for anyone to take legal ownership of those techniques away from the public.
* Trademarks for the names of the techniques would not allow OIF to control how anyone uses those techniques. So if any centre has the idea that it could sacrifice its independence and autonomy for the sake of protecting Osho’s meditation techniques, that effort would be entirely in vain.
Is copyright different from Trademark?
* The content of books and recordings, for example, are protected by copyrights, which are a very different kind of intellectual property right. If someone was claiming Osho’s writings as his own or misusing recordings, this would be a copyright issue. Owning a trademark would have nothing to do with how the content of Osho’s work is used.
Can a Trademark holder prevent people from talking about Him or writing about Him?
* Absolutely not. A trademark that consists of the name (or in this case pseudonym) of a historical person has nothing whatsoever to do with control of the historical person or his/her estate or reputation. A trademark for “Osho” is not about the person Osho. A trademark for “Osho” wouldn’t give the trademark holder any rights over Osho the person at all.
* All countries where Osho trademarks have been claimed have laws protecting the freedom of the press and freedom of speech. Journalists, writers, publishers, and other commentators can say what they like about people as long as they don’t violate the laws of slander, liable, and defamation.
* Trademark laws are never used to limit freedom of the press or freedom of speech. In modern culture, if we don’t like what someone says we have the right to reply and debate. We don’t have the power to stifle the opinions of others. This isn’t what trademarks are about.
(Traducción libre de Ma Gyan Darshana)
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario