Archive for National Association for the Abortion of Colored People

NAACP lawsuit against pro-life group followed one against LDF

Posted in NAACP with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 23, 2015 by saynsumthn

This week, the NAACP lost a trademark infringement lawsuit against a community organization which used the NAACP’s acronym in a parody to describe their support for abortion and Planned Parenthood.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lawsuit was filed after The Radiance Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about social issues from a Christian perspective and co-founded by Ryan Bomberger, published an article at the website LifeNews.com online entitled “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” which criticized the NAACP’s stance on abortion.

Life News Ryan NAACP story

Apparently, to the NAACP, using their acronym in political satire rises to the level of trademark infringement.

Ryan_Scott_Bomberger_2

This lawsuit should be shocking to any American who values truth and the First Amendment,” said Bomberger at the time the lawsuit was filed.

The irony is painful. The NAACP is suing me—a black man—for exercising my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech.

But, Bomberger did not stand alone in being on the receiving end of an NAACP trademark infringement lawsuit.

You might be interested to know, that the NAACP once sued their sister organization under the same claim of trademark infringement.

In 1985, The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., won a court case against the National Association for Colored People (NAACP) for trademark infringement, according to a Federal Court of Appeals. The case overruled the decision of a federal judge in 1983.

The court found that the NAACP began the Legal Defense Fund using the initials NAACP since 1939 but the organization had become too dependent over the years. That was where they went wrong.

NAACP trademark NAACP legal

Apparently, the NAACP created a monster and when tensions emerged in the 1960’s they went to court, charging their own created wing of trademark infringement.

As they always say, follow the money and what the NAACP said the Defense Fund did was infringe on their fund-raising.

The United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit reversed a District Court decision and ruled that the two organizations, like quarreling family members, must continue to share the NAACP initials with which they were born. The suit was later dismissed.

RadianceFoundation

Anyone see a pattern here?

Thankfully, in the Radiance Foundation case, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the NAACP did not have actionable claims for trademark infringement and Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s marks to criticize their abortion support falls squarely within the exceptions to trademark dilution specifically included in the Lanham Act to avoid encroaching on free speech rights.

NAACPFACTPOSTER

In the context of trademark infringement, the Lanham Act’s purpose, as noted, is to protect consumers from misleading uses of marks by competitors,” the decision states.

The decision also points out that a trademark “only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner’s good will against the sale of another’s product as his.

NAACP had held that because Radiance had a donate button on their website they were using the image for goods and services.

But, the appeals court wrote, “When the “use of the trademark does not imply sponsorship or endorsement of the product because the mark is used only to describe the thing, rather than to identify its source,” restricting speech does not serve the purpose of the Lanham Act.

“Indeed, criticism or parody of a mark holder would be difficult indeed without using the mark. Trademark protections exist neither to allow companies to protect themselves from criticism nor to permit them to “control language.”

Black pro-lifer wins lawsuit against NAACP over abortion support

Posted in NAACP, Ryan Bomberger with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on May 22, 2015 by saynsumthn

REPUBLISHING from the Life Dynamics Blog –

An appeals court has ruled in favor of a Black pro-life organization which parodied the NAACP to expose their stance on abortion.

WE WIN!!!!” those are the words of Ryan Bomberger founder of the Radiance Foundation regarding his free speech lawsuit filed by the NAACP.

Ryan Bomberger wins NAACP lawsuit

4th Circuit Court of Appeals rules, unanimously, in our favor! This is a huge win for the First Amendment. The NAACP tried to crush our right to free speech but truth and justice prevailed,” Bomberger posted today.

The lawsuit, initially filed by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, better known by its acronym “NAACP” against Bomberger began after The Radiance Foundation, an organization Bomberger co-founded, published an article online entitled “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People” which criticized the NAACP’s stance on abortion.

Radiance Civil Wrong d40e76914970c-500wi

The Radiance Foundation is a nonprofit organization focused on educating and influencing the public about issues impacting society. Radiance addresses social issues from a Christian perspective. It uses as its platform two websites, TheRadianceFoundation.org and TooManyAborted.com, where it posts articles on topics such as race relations, diversity, fatherlessness, and the impact of abortion on the black community.

The article, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” was posted by Radiance, and then picked up by Life News, exposing the NAACP’s ties to Planned Parenthood.

Shortly after the NAACP began to receive criticism for its position on abortion.

life-news-ryan-naacp-story

Though the NAACP has often claimed to be neutral on abortion, Radiance maintains that the NAACP’s actions actually demonstrate support for the practice.

According to Life News, following the piece, the NAACP sent Bomberger, the Chief Creative Officer of the Radiance Foundation, and LifeNews a threatening letter claiming infringement on its name and logo for including it in the opinion column.

The letter, accused Bomberger and the Radiance Foundation, of “trademark infringement” and stated that while “you are certainly entitled to express your viewpoint, you cannot do so in connection with a name that infringes on the NAACP’s rights.

NAACPFACTPOSTER

A court then ruled that The Radiance Foundation engaged in trademark infringement after doing nothing more than posting an article online that parodied the NAACP’s name.

The Radiance Foundation, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) , then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court, and in return, the NAACP filed counter-claims of “trademark infringement, dilution and confusion” for parodying the organization’s name in what the group describes as, “the NAACP’s documented pro-abortion position and actions.”

we-will-not-be-silenced

After a bench trial, the district court found for the NAACP on all counterclaims and denied declaratory relief to Radiance. The district court issued a permanent injunction “against any use [by Radiance] of ‘National Association for the Abortion of Colored People’ that creates a likelihood of confusion or dilution. However, it declined to award any damages or attorney’s fees, as it found the NAACP had failed to make the case that they were warranted.

In the latest decision, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals found that the NAACP does not have actionable claims for trademark infringement here, and Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s marks falls squarely within the exceptions to trademark dilution specifically included in the Lanham Act to avoid encroaching on free speech rights.

In the context of trademark infringement, the Lanham Act’s purpose, as noted, is to protect consumers from misleading uses of marks by competitors,” the decision states.

The decision also points out that a trademark “only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner’s good
will against the sale of another’s product as his.

NAACP had held that because Radiance had a donate button on their website they were using the image for goods and services.

But, the appeals court wrote, “When the “use of the trademark does not imply sponsorship or endorsement of the product because the mark is used only to describe the thing, rather than to identify its source,” restricting speech does not serve the purpose of the Lanham Act.

“Indeed, criticism or parody of a mark holder would be difficult indeed without using the mark. Trademark protections exist neither to allow companies to protect themselves from criticism nor to permit them to “control language.”

Get a free prolife pin

In finding that Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s marks was “in connection with” goods or services, the appeals court ruled that the district court erred in several respects, pointing out that Radiance used the NAACP’s marks only in the title and body of an article criticizing the NAACP.

The Appeals Court Wrote:

    Although present on the article page, the Donate button was off to the side and did not itself use the NAACP’s marks in any way. The billboard campaign was displayed on a different page altogether. A visitor likely would not perceive the use of the NAACP’s marks in the article as being in connection with those transactional components of the website. It is important not to lose perspective. The article was just one piece of each Radiance website’s content, which was comprised of articles, videos, and multimedia advocacy materials. That the protected marks appear somewhere in the content of a website that includes transactional components is not alone enough to satisfy the “in connection with” element. To say it was would come too close to an absolute rule that any social issues commentary with any transactional component in the neighborhood enhanced the commentator’s risk of Lanham Act liability.

The court addressed the issue of “confusion” that the Radiance parody of the NAACP caused as one over policy and not over goods, when it wrote, “trademark infringement is not designed to protect mark holders from consumer confusion about their positions on political or social issues. The evidence of “actual confusion” relied on by the district court consisted of phone calls to the NAACP by people who took issue with the NAACP supporting abortion. “[I]ndignation is not confusion,” at least not as pertains to trademark infringement, and at best the calls demonstrated confusion as to the NAACP’s policy positions rather than any good or service. Policy stances are neither goods nor services, though the means of conveying them may be.

The appeals court continued, “it is not immediately apparent how someone would confuse an article which is strongly critical of an organization with the organization itself. The mark in this case was used primarily to identify the NAACP as the object of Radiance’s criticism, resembling a descriptive or nominative fair use albeit by employing a modified version of the name.

As for the free speech aspects of Radiance’s parody of the NAACP the court writes:

    Whatever the label affixed to the article, Radiance’s twist on the famous moniker follows in the same vein as articles that refer to the NRA as the “National Republican Association” or the ACLU as the “Anti-Christian Lawyers Union.”

    Radiance’s ploy was nonetheless effective at conveying sharply what it was that Radiance wished to say. The implications for the likelihood of confusion factors are thus obvious: parody or satire or critical opinion generally may be more effective if the mark is strong and the satirical or critical version is similar to the original. The critical message conveyed by the satirical mark itself and in the commentary that follows ensures that no confusion about the source of the commentary will last, if in fact it is generated at all.

    In this case, the title related to and conveyed the subject of the article: the NAACP and Radiance’s views of its alleged stance on abortion. The use of the satirical modification of the true NAACP name was designed, as many titles are, to be eye-catching and provocative in a manner that induces the reader to continue on. We cannot find that use of the NAACP marks in the title of the Radiance article created a likelihood of confusion as to the piece’s authorship or affiliation.

The court then ruled in favor of Radiance writing, “In sum, and for the aforementioned reasons, the plaintiff’s expression in no way infringed upon or diluted defendant’s trademark rights. We hereby vacate the district court’s injunction and remand with directions that the defendant’s Lanham Act counterclaims be dismissed.”

Ryan Bomberger 47912860773315_n

Ryan Bomberger says that now that the legal wranglings are over, he plans to continue to call the NAACP out on their stance regarding abortion.

“What an upside down world,” Ryan Bomberger told Life Dynamics in response to the decision.

In 2015 it’s radical to believe that every human life has purpose, and that we’re all equal. Along the way, the NAACP stopped believing this which would explain why they would spend over half a million suing us for accurately parodying their name: The National Association for the Abortion of Colored People. The U.S. 4th Circuit stopped that assault of the First Amendment and ruled in our favor. Not only will we continue to parody the NAACP’s name, we’ll continue relentlessly calling them out for supporting the violence of abortion and (the abject failure of) liberalism.”

Read the decision here.

We are incredibly grateful to ADF and our attorney, Chuck Allen, for defending what the NAACP claims to protect: our most basic civil rights,” Bomberger added.

In the documentary film, Maafa21, Life Dynamics also discusses the NAACP’s attitudes on abortion detailing how the organization tried to hide and prevent their convention goers from hearing about the abortion connection to black genocide.

One witness interviewed in the film states that ironically, the NAACP even went to the extent of using buses to block their demonstrations about black genocide in front of Cobal Hall.

Watch Maafa21 here.

Parody or free speech? Court to hear NAACP suit against Black pro-life group

Posted in NAACP with tags , , , , , , , , , on March 25, 2015 by saynsumthn

The irony never ends—the nation’s second oldest civil rights group suing a black man for exercising his second most basic civil right—the freedom of speech, ” Ryan Bomberger, founder of the Radiance Foundation.

WE-WILL-NOT-BE-SILENCED

In 1985, The NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., won a court case against the National Association for Colored People (NAACP) for trademark infringement, according to a Federal Court of Appeals. The case overruled the decision of a federal judge in 1983.

The court found that the NAACP began the Legal Defense Fund using the initials NAACP since 1939 but the organization had become too dependent over the years. That was where they went wrong.

NAACP trademark NAACP legal

Apparently, the NAACP created a monster and when tensions emerged in the 1960’s they went to court, charging their own created wing of trademark infringement.

As they always say, follow the money and what the NAACP said the Defense Fund did was infringe on their fund-raising.

So, it is no shock that if the NAACP would sue it’s own branch it would go after an outside Black organization which used it’s initials in a parody.

RadianceFoundation

Enter the Radiance Foundation.

In January 2013, Radiance, a non-profit organization dedicated to educating people about social issues from a Christian perspective, posted an article on two of its websites critical of the NAACP’s position on abortion and its support of Planned Parenthood.

After the article, “NAACP: National Association for the Abortion of Colored People,” was posted by Radiance, and then picked up by the news site Life News, the NAACP received complaints about its position on abortion.

Life News Ryan NAACP story

Anyone see a pattern here?

Allow me to paint the picture as it is unfolding, if complaints arise then donations may go down i.e. follow the money!

In response, the NAACP sent a cease-and-desist letter to Radiance, threatening trademark infringement litigation if Radiance refused to comply with the NAACP’s demands.

The NAACP also threatened Life News for reporting on the story.

In April, a court ruled that The Radiance Foundation engaged in trademark infringement after doing nothing more than posting an article online that parodied the NAACP’s name.

The Radiance Foundation then filed a declaratory judgment action in federal court, and in return, the NAACP has filed counter-claims of “trademark infringement, dilution and confusion” for parodying the organization’s name in what the group describes as, “the NAACP’s documented pro-abortion position and actions.”

Ryan_Scott_Bomberger_2

This lawsuit should be shocking to any American who values truth and the First Amendment,” explains Bomberger who is a citizen journalist and Emmy Award-winning creative professional. “The irony is painful. The NAACP is suing me—a black man—for exercising my Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech.

In other words, the full multimillion dollar NAACP organization is going after one Black man because he dared to call them out on abortion.

Unfortunately, in the initial hearing, Judge Raymond Jackson found Radiance guilty, concluding in a 52-page opinion, that “The NAACP has no formal or official position or policy regarding abortion.

Bomberger claims that Judge Jackson simply ignored trial evidence such as the NAACP’s own 2004 Convention Resolution and online Press Release announcing: “NAACP Board Takes Historical Prochoice Position“.

NAACP Prochoice resolution

This announcement was followed by the NAACP’s participation in a Planned Parenthood DC abortion rally protesting the passage of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Since then, the NAACP’s actions have been inarguably pro-abortion,” Radiance Foundation writes in their press release.

According to Bomberger, “There is no question about the NAACP’s position on abortion. They passed a resolution at their annual convention in 2004 erroneously entitled: “The March For Life”.

NAACP-MARCH-FOR-LIFE-2004-RESOLUTION

The document Bomberger published is interesting considering that the annual pro-life march is also called a “March for Life.”

But…I digress.

Bomberger cites other areas where he believes the Judge ignored evidence in the case:

    The judge wrongly claimed on page 41 of the Order: “The NAACP has intentionally refrained from taking a stance on abortion, and certainly has not been alleged to advocate for the abortion of people of color.”

    Never mind the NAACP not only promoted the pro-abortion “March for Women’s Lives”, it led from the stage.

    Former NAACP President Julian Bond was a featured speaker at event as well as the keynote speaker at a fund-raising dinner for NARAL, the same year, where he praised the fact that “black women exercise this precious [abortion] at rates far exceeding their percentage of the population.”

    Never mind Planned Parenthood is a corporate sponsor of the NAACP’s annual conventions.

    Never mind the NAACP filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona for its Prenatal Non-Discrimination Act, which banned sex-selection and race-based abortions.

    Never mind the recent president of the NAACP, Benjamin Jealous, was the keynote speaker at a Planned Parenthood of Southeast Georgia fundraiser where one could purchase a $1000-a-Margaret-Sanger-Founders-Circle package to help raise money for the political arm of the abortion chain.

Bomberger and his Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys are not the only ones who believe parody is free speech and not trademark infringement.

In fact the ACLU, which is generally pro-abortion has filed a brief on The Radiance Foundation’s behalf.

Their brief was summarized by Harvard Journal’s, Jolt Digest, which wrote, “the Electronic Frontier Foundation (“EFF”) and the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Inc. (“ACLU”) filed a joint amicus curiae brief in the U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Fourth Circuit for the Radiance Foundation, Inc. In its brief, the EFF and the ACLU urge that “trademark laws should not be used to impinge the First Amendment rights of critics and commentators”.

Citing the review in part:

    Building on three prior Circuit Court cases holdings that “artistic or political use of a trademark” and “literary titles” do not violate the Lanham Act “so long as the level of relevance to the underlying work is merely . . . above zero,” the EFF and the ACLU argue that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not infringing on a confusion theory.

    The brief reasons that “Radiance’s use of NAACP’s trademark in the title of an article was directly relevant to the article’s political goal and did not explicitly mislead as to the source or content of the article .”

    The EFF and the ACLU then argues that Radiance’s use of the term “NAACP” in an article title was not trademark dilution because it was a “noncommercial use” defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3) and thus exempted from Lanham Act action. Citing previous court decisions, the brief explained that the trademark dilution cause of action is limited to commercial advertising and excludes fully protected speech in newspapers, magazines, films, songs and similar media. Thus Radiance’s use of the NAACP’s trademark to criticize the practices of the organization and to comment on how abortion affects the African-American community is exempted under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii).

“No trademark law overrides the First Amendment freedom to comment upon the positions, policies and activities of groups like the NAACP. This type of speech has a very long history of protection,” said Charles M. Allen with the law firm Goodman, Allen, & Filetti and one of nearly 2,500 private attorneys allied with ADF. “The Radiance Foundation merely expressed its opinion of the NAACP’s activities in an article. The NAACP cannot use trademark law to shield itself from criticism by denying others the right to use its name when they are expressing their opinions.”

I believe this trial in life will have a happy ending. Our hope is that truth and justice prevail and that our guaranteed, precious right to free speech is protected. Even more importantly, we hope that so-called “leaders” in the civil rights movement have their consciences awakened to realize no right is more valuable and in need of defense than the foundational Right to Life,” Bomberger said.

Will free speech prevail?

We will soon see as the case is now before three justices at the Fourth Circuit. Oral arguments will be heard Wednesday, March 25th.

Black Pro-life Group criticizing NAACP receives national attention

Posted in Black Conservative, Black Deaths, Black Eugenics Victim, NAACP, Planned Parenthood and NAACP with tags , , , , , , , , , , on February 7, 2013 by saynsumthn

Today, Twitters’ censorship of a Black Pro-life Group criticizing the NAACP has received national attention.

NAACP Walter Hoye

twittersuspended

On Jan. 28 , Black Pro-Life groups protested the NAACP Image Awards. They accused the NAACP of failing to represent the best interests of the black community – especially their ties to Planned Parenthood – a group the members say is “targeting the black community” by trying to control the population through abortion.

Pastor Stephen Broden and Dr. Johnny Hunter

The protesters carried signs requesting that Twitter turn their account, @NAACP_WATCHDOGS, back on which had been suspend just days before the event for criticizing the NAACP.

Alveda_King2_Maafa21_007440

“The NAACP Image Awards Protest Lit a Fire!” says Dr. Alveda King

Now, Fox News’ Todd Starnes has published a story, where he interviews members from the Coalition. According to the article, their trouble started when the group’s social media manager, sent out a tweet promoting the demonstration. A press release issued by the group, says the Tweet quoted Dr. Johnny Hunter, National Director of Life Education And Resource Network (LEARN) who said, “Racist elitists no longer need the Ku Klux Klan to control blacks; they have Planned Parenthood. And Planned Parenthood has the NAACP on a leash.” The NAACP apparently complained and as a result, Twitter suspended the account. The group called the move a “way to silence opposition.”

MarkCrutcher_2003_sm

Mark Crutcher, President of Life Dynamics Inc., agrees and says the Twitter / NAACP reaction is similar to what happened years ago when Black Journalist, Samuel Yette published a book detailing high-level plans within the United States to use birth control and abortion as genocide against African-Americans. In 1968, Yette became the first African-American reporter hired by Newsweek Magazine. Three years later, immediately after his book was released to the public, Mr. Yette was fired.

Samuel Yette

“Mr. Yette was chopped off at the knees because, by the late 60s, population control – especially Black population control – had become a virtual religion for America’s power structure. And these people do not tolerate dissent well – especially when it comes from uppity Black opinion molders,” Crutcher states.

Crutcher ties Yette with today’s Twitter/NAACP story, “It’s 2013. Dr. Johnny Hunter, a Black man, is quoted on Twitter criticizing the association between the NAACP and Planned Parenthood because of that organization’s racist and eugenics history. Within minutes, after saying that Planned Parenthood has the NAACP on a leash, this Black group’s Twitter account is suspended and taken down. To put it succinctly, Hunter had been “Yetted.”

Censored

Crutcher continues, “Today, America’s “Population-Control / Family-Planning Cartel” includes the politically ambitious quislings and shameless hucksters over at the NAACP. The fact is, given their unholy marriage to Planned Parenthood, it seems appropriate for the NAACP to just go ahead and change its name to the National Association for the Abortion of Colored People. When my friend, Johnny Hunter, began to point that out, it was inevitable that he would be Yetted.”

day gardner 2

Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union comments on NAACP threat to sue LifeNews.com and black pro-life leader Ryan Bomberger, of the Radiance Foundation, for a recent column that took the civil rights organization to task over its abortion position.

As a child, I thought the NAACP to be a super hero organization; an organization that would fight racism down to its very core — and like a super hero — it would always stand for truth and justice…fighting boldly for civil rights and freedom for all black people.

Apparently, there was some fine print in there that said — except for those children who are too small to defend themselves — we will allow their civil rights to be violated.

What bothers me most is the NAACP is very quick to recognize racism everywhere else except the one place that truly affects all of us. Black women and their unborn children are targeted by the abortion industry while the NAACP looks the other way.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm for Planned Parenthood, 90% of all abortion facilities are placed in lower-income urban areas. It also states that clients are mostly women of color.

tonya-reaves-0722

“On July 20, 2012, 24 year old Tonya Reaves bled to death after a botched second-trimester abortion. This young woman was left on a table bleeding for 5 hours at the Planned Parenthood Loop Center abortion clinic in downtown Chicago.

The full autopsy results indicate that Reaves’ injuries were survivable if she had received proper emergency care in a timely manner.

Yet, the NAACP was eerily silent — not even a peep from them to demand justice for Tonya — not a word to comfort her family.

The abortion industry makes millions and millions of dollars — blood money — by killing black children while the NAACP buries its organizational head in the sand.

The NAACP, a one time giant for justice, is not only less than a shadow of its former self but with its support of the atrocity of abortion the organization has in fact turned against those it should be standing up for.

With that said, I think the ‘National Association for the Abortion of Colored People‘ seems quite fitting … don’t you?”