When Your Church Sends You a Cease and Desist

by Daneen Akers

A few weeks ago, Stephen and I received a cease and desist letter from the Seventh-day Adventist Church claiming that our film title was an improper use of the Seventh-day Adventist trademark that infringes and dilutes the mark. Actually, the letter was from the law firm that represents the General Conference Corporation of Seventh-day Adventists (GCCSDA), the legal entity that holds the rights to the trademark of “Seventh-day Adventist”:

“Your use and modification of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark in this manner is without permission of the GCCSDA and/or the church, and is likely to cause dilution by blurring the distinctive qualities of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark and by tarnishing the reputation of the mark. Your use of the mark in this manner is also likely to cause confusion among consumers who may mistakenly believe that the Church has authorized or approved your use of the SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST mark,” the letter read.

While it was more than a little surreal to see the church I grew up in referred to and acting as a corporation and members as “consumers,” I also found it hard to swallow that anyone would be duped into thinking the official church was behind a film entitled, Seventh-Gay Adventists: A film about love, sex, and eternal life. I gotta think the average member—ahem—“consumer” is a bit brighter than the church is giving them credit for.

I’ve always realized that the title was a bit flip and maybe even irreverent. And in some circles that has helped us gain credibility because people immediately realized that the church was in no way connected with our project. In other circles, it went too far and seemed disrespectful.

Even I wasn’t always a huge fan of the title. It was a working title, something that very succinctly and accurately got across exactly who and what the film was about. But the more I talked to LGBT Adventists, the more the title seemed a perfect description of the excruciating challenge they faced in trying to integrate their religious and sexual identity. We all know it isn’t easy to be a gay Christian, but being a gay Adventist is an entirely more challenging proposition because, to most, Adventism is much more than just a belief system; it’s an entire culture and community that’s more like an ethnicity than just a church. As one religion professor said recently to a group of SDA Kinship members, “You have two incurable conditions—you’re gay and you’re Adventist. And it’s awfully hard to stop being either one of those things.”

Stephen also loves how the title Seventh-Gay Adventists also gets at one of the themes of the film—who gets to define labels and who is in and out? How do those definitions get challenged or changed?

I’ve always asked myself if I thought that the title would keep anyone who should see the film from seeing it, and, so far, my answer has been “no.” Those who are dead set against seeing anything that might open their hearts a little to the very real rejection that gay and lesbian members of the church face weren’t likely to see the film no matter the title.

But does the church have a fair point? Are we infringing on their trademark? And first, let me say that while it is odd to think of a church as a corporation, it’s a reality; and I understand that they want to protect their name. This strikes me as a wholly different situation. If we were starting a church, I’d understand the problem. But we’re not. We’re making a film.

There are a few points that our lawyer made in response, some of which hinge on the technicalities of trademark law that is best left to the lawyers. But here are the highlights:

1. The film isn’t done yet, and nobody can watch it.
2. Back in 1991, the church sued Seventh-day Adventist Kinship (a support group for gay and lesbian Adventists) over the use of the name and lost because the presiding judge found the Seventh-day Adventist mark to be generic.
3. The title of a film is a preview to viewers of the film’s subject—nobody is going to think the title denotes the maker of the film.
4. Most importantly, when the title of a literary work makes commentary on the trademark holder, then we’re no longer talking about trademark law, we’re talking about the First Amendment. And the First Amendment trumps.

And that’s really the crux of it.

Yes, the title is an allusion (though it’s clearly not identical) to the name of the church because that’s the church our subjects grew up in. It’s the church that most of them love dearly despite the marginalization, suspicion, and often outright rejection they have to deal with.

And the title gives those “consumers” a hint of what’s to come. They’re likely to realize that the film is about the Seventh-day Adventist Church’s policies on homosexuality, or at least the experience of gay members of the church in the face of those policies.

This means, in the words of our lawyer, “The expression inherent in the title is protected by the First Amendment.” We don’t need to be ceasing or desisting.

The church may not like our title or the inherent identity and authority questions it raises; but because we live in a country where we are privileged to have the freedom to speak our minds and question our religious institutions, we aren’t infringing on their trademark or copyright. We are making a commentary.

Just thought you’d like to know what’s been going on behind the scenes over here in our production office. Did I mention the production office is a side-by-side desk in our kitchen? We’re about as indie a production company as they come; and we’re producing this film out of our home office, which works pretty well except when our 18-month old flings her applesauce all over my laptop (hazard of small SF apartments in which offices have to be fit into kitchen nooks).

We’ll keep you posted!