AS WARS END, MILITARY GIVES ITS TRADEMARKS NEW VIGILANCE

Original Story:  NYTimes.com.

WASHINGTON — United States Marine G-string underwear. The Starfleet Marine Corps Academy. And the motto from a human resources company: “The Few. The Proud. The Well-Paid.”

Of course, none of those are actually from the United States Marine Corps.

As one war has ended and another winds down, enterprising members of the armed services are rushing home to get their piece of the American dream and woo consumers by showing off any affiliation with the American military. As a result, the Pentagon’s handful of trademark attorneys have been churning out cease-and-desist letters to try to protect their brands from look-alike logos on products that are not always the image of dignity, including a toilet paper called Leatherneck Wipes. An Oklahoma City Trademark Lawyer said these cases are not a joking matter.

The Pentagon is playing offense as well. Military attorneys have been running back and forth to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register trademarks for military brands — in part to make sure that the services will get a cut of licensing fees. In the past year, the Marines have been to the trademarks office 68 times for products like Guadalcanal sweatshirts, meant to evoke the World War II battle against the Japanese, and Tip of the Spear newsletters, named for the motto of the Marine Corps’ First Light Armored Reconnaissance Battalion. There are also “Pain Is Weakness Leaving the Body” water bottles, meant to promote, well, general Marine toughness.
The Marines registered only one trademark in 2003 and four in 2008. But as troops came home from Iraq and then Afghanistan, efforts began picking up. In 2010 and the first half of 2011, the Marines registered nine trademarks.  A Fresno Trademark Lawyer said that current employee familiar with a business are often the competition later.  In this case the employees are the troops.

Then Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011, Disney tried to trademark the name SEAL Team Six, and things ratcheted up from there. The Navy immediately fired back at Disney, filing its own trademark for the phrases “SEAL team” and “Navy SEALs,” terms that, the Navy said in its filing, imply membership in a Navy organization that “develops and executes military missions involving special operations strategy, doctrine and tactics.”

Still, the berm had been breached, especially with so many servicemen and women returning home and setting up small businesses. In 2012 and 2013, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines all saw a big spike in efforts to use military branding to sell goods and services, military trademark lawyers said.

“Because we’ve been in two wars in 10 years, we’ve had a lot of patriotism,” said Philip Greene, the Marines’ trademark counsel. “A lot of people are getting out of the service, saying, ‘I want to go into business.’ ” He said the “unpleasant part of my job is going out and talking to a Marine” and having to say no to someone who, proud of his or her affiliation with the service, wants to show it conspicuously in branding. A Idaho Trademark Lawyer agreed that it can be a difficult conversation.

Such was the conversation Mr. Greene had recently with Shadrach Brooks, a Marine veteran who started Semper Fidelis Garage Doors in Mesa, Ariz., in 2012. In addition to the company name — Latin for “always faithful,” and the Marine motto — Mr. Brooks initially put the iconic Marine seal on the company’s masthead, complete with a bald eagle, a globe showing the Americas and an anchor. And, at the bottom of the seal, “garage doors.”

Mr. Greene promptly called him. “At first I thought it was a friend playing a joke on me,” Mr. Brooks recalled. Eventually the two worked things out — and Semper Fidelis Garage Doors is still called Semper Fidelis Garage Doors. But now there is no Marine seal logo, just two crossed swords.

The military services do allow some use of their brands in exchange for a license fee. Since 2009, the Marines have collected $5.4 million in such fees, and last year their trademarks office turned over $700,000 to a morale, welfare and recreation fund.

There are plenty of critics who say government entities like the Marines should not be making it so hard for American taxpayers to wear — or sell — their brand. “Should the military be able to monetize expressions of support for these entities?” asked Paul Levy, a lawyer with Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group. “I would say no.” Americans, he added, “should be able to express our affinity to government agencies we like without paying them a fee.”

For some Marines, being told that they cannot use a brand they fought for does not sit well. “They believe they earned it on Parris Island,” said Capt. Eric Flanagan, a Marine Corps spokesman, referring to the installation near Beaufort, S.C., where 16,000 enlisted Marines go through basic training every year. “They died for it, and now you’re going to try to take it? You going to take that tattoo off my arm, too?”

The Army, Navy and Air Force have been furiously registering trademarks for their brands as well. Mike Sullivan, the Army’s brand director, said his office more than doubled its number of licenses in two years, to 265 in 2013 from 120 in 2011.

But the Marines, who assiduously promote themselves as a brand that is the first, fastest and best in the military, have had the biggest spike, relative to their smaller size, in registering trademarks. And the desire of former Marines to identify their postservice professional lives with that branding is exactly why so many of them run into legal entanglements. A Lexington Patent Lawyer said that he has also seen an increase from military personal with patents.

“The most important thing to us is preserving the historic integrity of the Marine Corps trademarks,” said Jessica O’Haver, director of the Marine Corps Trademark Licensing Office. The same things that entrepreneurial former Marines want to capitalize on — including Marine slogans like “No better friend, no worse enemy” and “Earned, not given” — are the slogans that the Marine Corps, she said, must fight to protect.

Which is why Mr. Greene, the lawyer for the Marines, fired off another cease-and-desist letter recently when he spotted a website for the Starfleet Marine Corps, a “Star Trek” fan site complete with the Marine eagle.

The usual negotiations ensued, and the intergalactic warriors got rid of the Marine eagle but kept the name.

Mr. Greene said he did not have a problem with the Marine Corps name being a part of the “Star Trek” fan site. “There’s a British Royal Marines, there are all kinds of marines out there,” he said. “And if you’re out in this galaxy somewhere, I care even less. But don’t copy my logo.”

Mystery Man's Arrest Leads to Stash of Fake IDs, Uniforms

Story first reported from foxnews.com

To some, Florida resident Roy Antigua may have been a decorated member of the U.S. military, a CIA agent or a member of NASA.

However, authorities in Florida say the only thing they know for sure is Antigua is a phony, and they are asking the public for help in identifying his possible cons and lies. They are trying to unravel the mystery surrounding Antigua after discovering an enormous stash of fake IDs and uniforms in his home.

"We need to know, from start to finish -- who is Roy Antigua?" New Port Richey Police Chief James Steffens said at a news conference Monday according to The Tampa Bay Times.

New Port Richey Police Officer Edward Campbell tells MyFoxTampaBay.com he had a feeling something was amiss when Antigua gave him a U.S. Coast Guard identification during a routine traffic stop last week.

"It had a gold chip that was missing," Campbell told the station. "The back of the ID resembled a hotel card."

It was only the tip of the iceberg. Antigua, 52, had uniforms from NASA , U.S. Customs, the Navy, the CIA, the Secret Service and Homeland Security, The Tampa Bay Times reports. He also had dozens of military medals, a flight helmet and flight instructor badge and a Boy Scout troop leader uniform.

"It's actually scary. You see these Boy Scout uniforms, who knows if he's been around young children and what his intentions were," an official tells MyFoxTampaBay.com.

He also had a bag filledl with doctor's equipment and a physician's assistant's badge and, chillingly, a photo of himself in scrubs holding a newborn.

Now authorities are saying the best-case scenario is that Antigua is someone who has stockpiled his collection for play or dress-up.

"Is he really a threat or is he someone who is living a very involved fantasy life?" Steffens said, according to The Tampa Bay Times.

Steffens tells the paper he can vouch that Antigua impersonated a Coast Guard officer at least once. He recognized Antigua from a Memorial Day event at a cemetery, where he says Antigua introduced himself as a Coast Guard Lieutenant Commander and was wearing a uniform. He then sat next to the police chief in a special section for officials.

"Everybody around there thought that he was the real deal," Steffens told the paper.

The only ID that ended up being real was an identification card saying Antigua was a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary in Miami, a volunteer unit, but Antigua was kicked out in 2011 after being arrested on a grand theft charge. Antigua is a licensed respiratory care practitioner, according to the Department of Health, but detectives aren't sure if or where he was employed.

Antigua was arrested for driving without a license and a parole violation after the traffic stop, but was further investigated once officers noticed the fake ID. He is now being held without bail.

Steffens asks anyone who might have dealt with Antigua to call his agency at (727) 841-4550. He says authorities are investigating his possible ties to federal law enforcement agencies, the military, hospitals and other groups.

"You don't have this collection just to keep it in your house and look in the mirror," Steffens told The Tampa Bay Times.

For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.

For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News  blog.

For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.

For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.

For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.

For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.

For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.

For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.

Marine Exercises Free Speech

Story first appeared in timesunion.com.

CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (AP) — A Marine who criticized the President on his Facebook page has committed misconduct and should be dismissed, a military board recommended late Thursday.  A San Diego Civil Rights Lawyer could become involved in the case based on First Amendment rights.

The Marine Corps administrative board made the decision after a daylong hearing at Camp Pendleton for an accused Marine Sergeant.

The board also recommended that the Marine be given an other-then-honorable discharge. That would mean he would lose his benefits and would not be allowed on any military base.

The board's recommendations go to a general who will either accept or deny them. If the general disagrees with the board, the case could go to the secretary of the Navy.

The Sergeant's lawyers argued that the 9-year Marine, whose service was to end in four months, was expressing his personal views and exercising his First Amendment rights.

During the hearing, the prosecutor said that the Marine went as far as superimposing images of the President's face on a poster for the movie "Jackass."

The prosecutor argued that the behavior repeatedly violated Pentagon policy that limits the free speech rights of service members, and said he should be dismissed after ignoring warnings from his superiors about his postings.

The government submitted screen grabs of the postings on one Facebook page he created called Armed Forces Tea Party, which the prosecutor said included the image of the President on the "Jackass" movie poster. The Sergeant also superimposed the President's image on a poster for "The Incredibles" movie that he changed to "The Horribles," the prosecutor said.

The prosecutor also said anti-Presidential comments by the Marine that were posted on a Facebook page used by Marine meteorologists were prejudicial to good order and discipline, and could have influenced junior Marines.

The Sergeant's security clearance was taken away and he has no future in the Marine Corps because he can't do his job without that clearance.

During the hearing prosecutors were trying to dredge up any damaging information they could against the Marine.

The Sergeant's attorney expressed after the hearing that he hoped that the recommendation would be rejected by the general, saying the case will go forward. The military has had a policy since the Civil War limiting the free speech of service members, including criticism of the commander in chief.

Pentagon directives say military personnel in uniform cannot sponsor a political club; participate in any TV or radio program or group discussion that advocates for or against a political party, candidate or cause; or speak at any event promoting a political movement.

Commissioned officers also may not use contemptuous words against senior officials.
Backed by a team of lawyers and congressmen, the Marine has said he is fighting for his constitutional rights and should be allowed to stay in the military. His lawyers and the American Civil Liberties Union contend his views are protected by the First Amendment.

The Sergeant has said his opinions are his own and has put a disclaimer on his Facebook page saying so. His attorneys argued service members have a right to voice their opinions as long as they do not appear to be presenting their views as being endorsed by the military. They say the Pentagon policy is vague and military officials do not understand it.

The Marine Corps has said it decided to take administrative action after Stein declared on Facebook that he would not follow orders from Obama and later clarified that statement saying he would not follow unlawful orders.

The Sergeant could face other-than-honorable discharge while seeing his rank reduced to lance corporal and losing his benefits. The nine-year veteran was set to finish his service in four months.

He said he was removed from his job at the Marine Corps Recruiting Depot in San Diego last month and given a desk job with no access to computers.

A former Marine who is also a California House Representative, wrote a letter to the commanding officer stating the sergeant should not face dismissal for an opinion shared by a majority of Marines. It was stated that he was referring to the statement that he would not obey unlawful orders.

The Sergeant said his statement about the President was part of an online debate about NATO allowing U.S. troops to be tried for the Quran burnings in Afghanistan.

In that context, he said, he was stating that he would not follow orders from the president if it involved detaining U.S. citizens, disarming them or doing anything else that he believes would violate their constitutional rights.

For more law related news, visit the Nation of Law blog.

Judge Orders U.S. Military to Stop ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

NY Times

 

A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the United States military to stop enforcing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law that prohibits openly gay and bisexual soldiers from serving.

Judge Virginia A. Phillips of Federal District Court wrote that the 17-year-old policy “infringes the fundamental rights of United States service members and prospective service members” and violates their rights of due process and freedom of speech. She “permanently enjoins” enforcement of the law, she ruled, and ordered the military “immediately to suspend and discontinue” any investigation or proceedings to dismiss members of the services.

While Tuesday’s decision is likely to be appealed by the government, Judge Phillips's injunction represents a significant new milestone for gay rights in the United States.

Two other recent decisions have overturned restrictions on gay rights at the state and federal level, but Tuesday’s ruling could have a more sweeping impact, as it would apply to all United States service members anywhere in the world.

The case is Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America. Christian Berle, the acting executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, applauded the judge’s action, saying it would make the armed forces stronger.

“Lifting the ban on open service will allow our armed forces to recruit the best and brightest, and will not have their hands tied because of an individual’s sexual orientation.”

Alex Nicholson, the named plaintiff in the lawsuit, said that with the breadth of the decision, “We sort of won the lottery.”

The law has long been a point of contention. President Obama has asked Congress to repeal don’t ask, don’t tell, but the Department of Justice defended the law under rules requiring the department to defend laws passed by Congress under most circumstances.

Judge Phillips, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton, declared the law unconstitutional in an opinion issued on Sept. 9. She then sought recommendations from the parties as to what kind of legal relief should follow.

The Log Cabin Republicans, the gay organization that brought the suit, recommended a nationwide injunction. The Department of Justice recommended narrower action.

Arguing that “the United States is not a typical defendant, and a court must exercise caution before entering an order that would limit the ability of the government to enforce a law duly enacted by Congress” the administrated noted that that the law had been found constitutional in other courts. It asked that the judge’s injunction apply only to members of Log Cabin Republicans and not to the military over all.

In February, Robert M. Gates, the Secretary of Defense, and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, asked Congress to repeal the law. The House voted in May to end don’t ask don’t tell, but the Senate last month voted not to take up the bill allowing repeal. Advocates for repeal have pushed for that vote to be reconsidered during the lame duck session of Congress following the midterm election.

Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said: “Senator Reid is encouraged by the decision, and still hopes to be able to take the bill to the floor after the elections in November.”

Tony Perkins, the president of the Family Research Council and a proponent of the don’t ask, don’t tell law, criticized the ruling, accusing Judge Phillips of “playing politics with our national defense.”

In a statement, Mr. Perkins, a former Marine, said, “Once again, an activist federal judge is using the military to advance a liberal social agenda,” and noted that there is still “strong opposition of military leaders” to changing the law, and that the Senate’s decision to put off a vote on repeal was due in part to an ongoing study on the “the potential impact on readiness and morale of allowing homosexuals to serve.”

He predicted that the decision would have a political ripple effect in the upcoming elections. “Americans are upset and want to change Congress and the face of government because of activist judges and arrogant politicians who will not listen to the convictions of most Americans and, as importantly, the Constitution’s limits on what the courts and Congress can and cannot do.”

The government has 60 days to file an appeal. Tracy Schmaler, a Justice spokeswoman, said “we’re reviewing it,” and that there would be no other immediate comment.

The government is expected, however, to appeal the injunction and seek to keep it from taking effect pending appeal. That is still a risky strategy, said Richard Socarides, an adviser to President Clinton on gay issues. “There will be an increasingly high price to pay politically for enforcing a law which 70 percent of the American people oppose and a core democratic constituency abhors.”

The don’t ask, don’t tell case is one of three recent decisions in the federal courts in which federal judges have pushed back against laws that restrict gay rights. Another judge in California struck down California’s ban on same-sex marriages in August. And in July, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that a law prohibiting the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages was unconstitutional, opening the way for federal benefits in such unions.

While President Obama has been critical of the Defense of Marriage Act the Justice Department has defended it in the federal court challenge. On Tuesday, the department filed an appeal in the Defense of Marriage Act, and issued a statement that might well be echoed in coming weeks in the military case.

“As a policy matter, the President has made clear that he believes DOMA is discriminatory and should be repealed, said Ms. Schmaler, the department spokeswoman. “The Justice Department is defending the statute, as it traditionally does when acts of Congress are challenged.”

Activists for gay rights said they are cheered by the overall sense of the three recent rulings. Chad Griffin, the board president of the American Foundation for Equal Rights, which sponsored the litigation against California’s same-sex ban, said “with the momentum of these three court decisions, I think it really is the beginning of the end of state-sanctioned discrimination in this country,” he said.

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Repeal Effort: Lame Duck Vote to Come?

CBS 

 

The Republican-led filibuster of legislation to allow for repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning gays from serving openly in the military is already prompting gay rights advocates to consider their next move.

And while the issue will continue to be litigated in the courts, advocates have not given up on the legislative process: The Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, which is dedicated to ending the policy, is now pushing for another vote following the midterm elections, where, it says, there is a "slim shot" of passage.

"We now have no choice but to look to the lame duck session where we'll have a slim shot," the group said in a statement after the vote. "The Senate absolutely must schedule a vote in December when cooler heads and common sense are more likely to prevail once midterm elections are behind us."

"We lost because of the political maneuvering dictated by the mid-term elections," the group added. "Let's be clear: Opponents to repealing 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' did not have the votes to strike those provisions from the bill. Instead, they had the votes for delay. Time is the enemy here."

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who had been seen as a potential 60th vote to break a filibuster to advance the legislation, said she was voting against advancing the legislation not out of support for the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy but because she did not feel Republicans had been given enough opportunity to offer amendments.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who only allowed Republicans the chance to put forth one amendment on repealing the policy, said before the vote that Reid would be open to more debate in the lame-duck session following the midterm elections.

It's not clear, however, that the 60-vote threshold would be achieved even if more debate wins over Collins. That's because two Democrats -- Sens. Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor of Arkansas - also supported the filibuster. (Reid voted with them, but only so that he could bring the bill back to the floor at a later date under Senate rules.)

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal provision was attached to the defense authorization bill, which the Senate will likely move to pass one way or another before the end of the year. It now falls to Reid to decide whether to again attach the repeal provision to the bill next time he brings it to the floor. (The same is true of another controversial provision, the DREAM Act.)

Republicans, who expect to pick up seats in both the House and Senate in the midterms, have pushed Democrats not to pass any legislation during the lame duck session, suggesting that doing so would be acting against the will of the American people.

According to CBS News polling, however, most Americans support allowing gay men and women to serve openly.

In a statement after the vote, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force said "politicians are playing politics with people's lives."

"Seventy-eight percent of Americans support ending 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' and countless others believe that young people should be provided a path to citizenship in the country they love and have always called home," the group said. "Today's Senate vote mocks those ideals. The senators who led and supported the filibuster effort should be ashamed."

But Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called the vote "a victory for the men and women who serve our nation in uniform."

"At least for now they will not be used to advance a radical social agenda," he said in a statement.

Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said in a statement that "this is a cause whose time has come." He went on to suggest the issue would again come up for a vote before the year is out.

"I remain confident that we will repeal this policy that is unjust and discriminatory and counter both to our national values and our national security," he said. "We didn't win today, but we can win this fight this year."