I have been working on the website this week quite a bit.  It should display properly on most mobile devices now.  That's a challenging aspect of web building, dealing with all the different screen sizes, resolutions, aspect ratios, etc.

I've put some effort into the forum area.  It should be much easier to use, especially on mobile.

I'm going to keep writing and posting content like articles about Edgewood, as I can get more information and details from our neighbors given their experiences over the years.  I can see what I am writing is being accessed by a good number of the community.

I know people have a lot to say.  They've said it to me as I knocked on doors and talked to neighbors, but a public forum is a different beast, and people may not be so open.

This board has fostered a stance as an adversarial opponent with this community.  One of our main complaints is the history of harassment and retribution of association members by some board members - often vindictively.  I'm sure many people would rather just not get involved and try to live peacefully as best they can and try to avoid the problems. 

I can understand that.  My wife has questioned me as to whether I really want to antagonize these people.

I will not live in fear in my own home or community.  I also understand now how these bad situations with bad management can be so enduring - for decades.  Some effort in fixing our situation now will benefit us long into the future.

Also, if anyone happens to have a back catalogue of "The Edgewood Voice" please let me know, I'd love to digitize them.

Edit: Years of past publications of "The Edgewood Voice" have been delivered to us, and digitization has begun.

Shane

The Edgewood Community of Citrus Heights organization has acquired a new color laser printer.  This should make disseminating essential materials and information more efficient and frequent in the community.

I thank the generous members of the Edgewood community for helping with our efforts.

The Edgewood Community of Citrus Heights website, edgewoodhoa.org, about our sleepy little community is gaining recognition the world over!

Flyer:

Neighbors,

I included a chat page to give folks who don't want to log in or get involved in the forum an option to express themselves and join the dialogue. When you post anonymously, a new anonymous ID is created each session.

It is possible for one person to appear as multiple anonymous people. Everyone should keep that in mind when reading this chat.

On 8/16, we had 42 new users of the website and 20+ existing users, with a 47.5-minute average session duration (Google Analytics).

The message is getting through.

edit: this so much more activity than we ever had at edgewoodhoa.org.

Hi Neighbors,

We have uploaded and updated some resources on the site.  There is some useful information about greater community news and events!

The Citrus Heights Community Newsletter has been updated here.

The Republic Services Citrus Heights Customer Service Guide is uploaded here.

We keep the Citrus Heights Events Calendar loaded with all local events we can find here. We favor community-oriented free events, but will include non-free events that are either charitable or of special interest.

edit: Posts and the Events Calendar have been redesigned, and interface and usability enhancements have been performed on the entire site.  Some mobile-rendering problems have been fixed.

Thanks!

 UPDATED: Mon 9/16 — Complete rewrite, it's too big for the forum, read: here.

This forum post is obsolete, see above.

Or click here for new article.

----

Regarding the "disclaimer" in the August The Edgewood Voice:

Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights.

California has a robust anti-SLAPP law, which provides strong protection for First Amendment rights. We meet all the criteria for anti-SLAPP protection because we are engaging in a public debate in a forum accessible free of charge and open to any member of the public, discussing an issue of public interest that affects many people beyond just the immediate participants, while petitioning a governmental body.

Under the statute, the rights of free speech or petition in connection with a public issue include four categories of activities: statements made before a legislative, executive or judicial proceeding; statements made in connection with an issue under consideration by a governmental body; statements made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest; and any other conduct in furtherance of the exercise of free speech or petition rights in connection with “a public issue or an issue of public interest.” § 425.16(e).

California courts consider several factors when evaluating whether a statement relates to an issue of public interest, including whether the subject of the statement at issue was a person or entity in the public eye, whether the statement involved conduct that could affect large numbers of people beyond the direct participants, and whether the statement contributed to debate on a topic of widespread public interest.

The Board will allege we violated § 43(a)(1) of the Lanham Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1).  Section 1125(a) thus creating two distinct bases of liability: unfair competition, § 1125(a)(1)(A), and false advertising, § 1125(a)(1)(B). Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1377, 1384 (2014).

‘Edgewood’ is not a distinctive mark but a geographically descriptive one, making it a weak mark. ‘Homeowners Association’ can not be restricted and must be disclaimed in any trademark application.  Courts consider the entire content of the website, not just the URL, when determining confusion or dilution.  The header image alone is enough to end that discussion, regardless of website disclaimers.  Reasonable people reading just about anything on the website, including homepage content, would instantly discover that we are opposed to the Edgewood homeowners association board.  The supporting documents Mr. Epstein pulled from www.edgewoodhoa.org and included with his original cease and desist absolutely prove that.

Which is it?  Are we masquerading as the official Edgewood Homeowners Association, or are we recruiting soldiers in support of our rebellion against them?

We also use clear disclaimers advising visitors of our independence, regardless of the necessity to do so.

As a threshold matter, the Lanham Act [15 U.S.C. § 1125](the board will allege willful Lanham Act violations) only regulates commercial speech. This website has always operated as non-commercial fair use.

“As a threshold matter, this Court must determine whether or not Simpson’s websites are commercial, because the Lanham Act only regulates commercial speech.” Bd. of Dirs. of Sapphire Bay Condos. W. v. Simpson, CIVIL ACTION No. 04-62 (D.V.I. Aug. 13, 2014)

“see also Farah v. Esquire Magazine, 736 F.3d 528, 541 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“Every circuit court of appeals to address the scope of [15 U.S.C. § 1125] has held that [its provisions] apply only to commercial speech.”) … “Stated succinctly, the commercial speech doctrine rests heavily on the common sense distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction . . . and other varieties of speech.” Blue Cross, 898 F.2d at 933 (quoting Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 637 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). (click here).

The board can not use the court system to suppress freedom of speech to protect their "interests."

The Clean Hands Affirmative Defense

"The clean hands doctrine is based on the maxim of equity which states that one “who comes into equity must come with clean hands.” This doctrine requires the court to deny equitable relief to a party who has violated good faith with respect to the subject of the claim. The purpose of the doctrine, as explained in Colby Furniture Company, Inc. v. Belinda J. Overton is to prevent a party from obtaining relief when that party’s own wrongful conduct has made it such that granting the relief would be against equity and good conscience. (click here)"

This website, www.edgewoodhoa.org, was the only outlet reporting to the community about the Edgewood Homeowner Association accounting fraud.

Geographically Descriptive Trademarks

"How do you know if your trademark is primarily geographically descriptive?  Well, the USPTO asks the following three questions to determine whether a trademark is primarily geographically descriptive or not:

1.   Is the primary significance of the mark a generally known geographic location?
2.   Do the products or services originate in the place identified in the mark?
3.   Would purchasers likely believe that the products or services originate in the geographic place identified in the mark?

If the answer to all three questions is “yes,” then the USPTO will issue a trademark office action refusing registration of your trademark on the Principal Register on the basis that it’s primarily geographically descriptive." (source)

(the Edgewood Neighborhood is outlined in red. Click for more.)

There are 25 entries for "Edgewood" in Wikipedia on one page under cities, towns, and neighborhoods.

There is actually an Edgewood, CA.

There are many Edgewood HOAs, or with "Edgewood" in the name, just in California.

“The Board’s trademark is descriptive. “Sapphire Bay” describes the geographic location of the condominiums, and “West” describes either the condominiums in relation to Sapphire Bay or other condominiums. The name is neither suggestive nor arbitrary.” Bd. of Dirs. of Sapphire Bay Condos. W. v. Simpson, CIVIL ACTION No. 04-62 (D.V.I. Aug. 13, 2014)

Descriptive marks are difficult to defend because they describe a characteristic, quality, feature, or purpose of the product or service they represent. Because they do not inherently distinguish a brand from others, descriptive marks are considered generic terms that any competitor offering similar products could need to use to describe their offerings. To be protected, a trademark must not just describe the goods or services but must also clearly identify the source of those goods or services.

The Relationship of the Goods and Services.

Trademark Law is complex, interesting, and quite precise.  It has been well refined with respect to the internet over the last few decades.  Many cases of infringement have occurred with regards to websites and domain names.  Most infringement cases I found, similar in scope to this case, are “gripe” sites, rather than legitimate community advocacy/forum websites about matters of public interest. In these cases, the defendants almost always win. The few that enter into settlements usually involve other issues such as commercial use or cybersquatting.  Cybersquatting is impossible here, as we have legitimate and genuine fair and prior use.  Dilution requires the mark to be famous.  We can’t possibly inhibit users from locating the board’s official website, as they have never established any web presence. We have never been a commercial entity, as this website is a community service effort.

“Domain Names. In trademark infringement cases involving domain names, the Ninth Circuit has affirmed the use of an additional instruction indicating that three of the Sleekcraft factors: (i) similarity of plaintiff’s and defendant’s mark; (ii) relatedness of services; and (iii) simultaneous use of the Internet as a marketing channel, otherwise known as the “Internet Troika,” are of greater importance. Internet Specialties W., Inc. v. Milon-Digiorgio Enters., Inc., 559 F.3d 985, 989 (9th Cir. 2009) (holding that law of Ninth Circuit “places greater import on the ‘Internet Troika’ in Internet cases”).” 9th Cir. (n.d.). 15.18 infringement-likelihood of confusion-factors-sleekcraft test (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a)). | Model Jury Instructions.

I have seen a few examples where the plaintiffs, confronted with an “Anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike,” desperately tried to dismiss their own lawsuits.  Plaintiffs can’t avoid facing Anti-SLAPP motions’ merits.  The consequences of misusing the justice system can be severe in California.  This is a risky game, as I believe we would likely have the opportunity to file a SLAPPback § 425.18 lawsuit. Damage awards are often in the millions.

The Lanham Act (the board would claim liability under this law) only awards the plaintiffs attorneys fees in exceptional circumstances. Successful anti-SLAPP motions and SLAPPbacks are always awarded attorney’s fees.

Also, the courts very much consider the intent behind the website.

edit: An expanded version of this post has been posted as an article: The Edgewood Voice Disclaimer.

If the court grants the motion to strike, it must impose attorney’s fees and costs on the plaintiff, except when the basis for the lawsuit stemmed from California’s public records or open meetings laws. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.16(c)(1)-(2). These laws provide separate provisions for recovering attorney’s fees and costs.

The California anti-SLAPP law also gives a successful defendant who can show that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit to harass or silence the speaker the ability to file a so-called “SLAPPback” lawsuit against his or her opponent. § 425.18. Under this remedy, a SLAPP defendant who won a motion to strike may sue the plaintiff who filed the SLAPP suit to recover damages for abuse of the legal process. Conversely, the defendant must pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and costs if the court finds that the motion to strike was frivolous or brought solely to delay the proceedings. § 425.16(c)(1).

I have read numerous cases of trademark infringement, both with and without domain property elements, and found that very few lawsuits involve descriptive marks or business names instead of distinctive ones. Based on what I have observed, none of the few descriptive mark owners who have attempted infringement lawsuits have been successful. We shared an example of a failed infringement case brought by an HOA board here.

What is Anti-SLAPP?

Short for strategic lawsuits against public participation, SLAPPs have become an all-too-common tool for intimidating and silencing criticism through expensive, baseless legal proceedings.

Anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a remedy to SLAPP suits. Anti-SLAPP laws are intended to prevent people from using courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate people who are exercising their First Amendment rights. In terms of reporting, news organizations and individual journalists can use anti-SLAPP statutes to protect themselves from the financial threat of a groundless defamation case brought by a subject of an enterprise or investigative story.

Under most anti-SLAPP statutes, the person sued makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff then has the burden of showing a probability that they will prevail in the suit — meaning they must show that they have evidence that could result in a favorable verdict. If the plaintiff cannot meet this burden and the suit is dismissed through anti-SLAPP proceedings, many statutes allow defendants to collect attorney’s fees from the plaintiff.

Resources

• View state-by-state resources in the Reporters Committee’s Anti-SLAPP Legal Guide.
• View recent anti-SLAPP updates from across the U.S.