Religious Technology Center - Litigation

Litigation

Since its inception in 1982, RTC has been involved in various lawsuits in both state and federal courts. The majority of the cases initiated by RTC contend unauthorized use of Scientology's copyrights, service marks, or trademarks. Critics of Scientology contend that a great number of these lawsuits have been launched in order "to silence critics." The courts have agreed in some cases; in RTC v. Lerma Judge Leonie Brinkema found that the RTC's lawsuit was intended to pursue the "broader motivation" of "the stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of its opponents."

The RTC filed a lawsuit on January 1, 1985 in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against Robin Scott and the Church of New Civilization (CNC), a Scientology splinter group, alleging theft and unauthorized use of confidential material owned by RTC. The case took over a decade to resolve, and was dismissed on April 11, 1996 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In its final opinion the court summarized the history of the case and commented on the conduct of RTC while the case was litigated:

" In January 1985 RTC sued Mayo and other persons connected with the Church of the New Civilization, a splinter group of the official Church of Scientology, contending that they were making unauthorized use of stolen documents relating to the religion of Scientology. RTC stated that it was "the protector" of the religion of Scientology, its philosophy and its technology "including the Advanced Technology" consisting of "confidential and proprietary information regarding counseling and training," and was the owner of various trademarks registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office protecting the Advanced Technology. "

" After 1,825 docket entries and nine years of pretrial litigation involving three discovery magistrates, a special master, the recusal of two district court judges, the denial of five petitions for writ of mandamus, three appeals and three denials of certiorari by the Supreme Court, the third district judge entered Final Judgment."

" here is little doubt that RTC is playing "fast and loose" with the judicial system as required in the minority view of estoppel. To first assert that its unfair competition and false designation of origin claims are justiciable and at the same time assert that Mayo's identical claims are not is at best questionable; in light of RTC's documented history of vexatious behavior, RTC's actions are indefensible. "