FOR THE LAST TIME, IT'S NOT THE OFFICIAL SAUK VILLAGE ILLINOIS LOGO!!!

By: Joachim Mahomes

"At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern. "The freedom to speak one's mind is not only an aspect of individual liberty -- and thus a good unto itself -- but also is essential to the common quest for truth and the vitality of society as a whole."  The United States Supreme Court rightfully has been particularly vigilant to ensure that individual expressions of ideas remain free from governmentally imposed sanctions. The First Amendment recognizes no such thing as a "false" idea.  As Justice Holmes wrote, "When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.

The sort of robust political debate encouraged by the First Amendment is bound to produce speech that is critical of those who hold public office or those public figures who are "intimately involved in the resolution of important public questions, policies, and laws, or, by reason of their fame or notoriety, shape events in areas of concern to society at large."  Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter probably said it best when he stated; "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures." Such criticism, inevitably, will not always be reasoned or moderate; public figures as well as public officials will be subject to "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks."

Of course, this does not mean that any speech about a public figure is immune from sanction in the form of damages. That groundwork was laid out as far back as 1964 when the New York Times was sued in the Supreme Court of Alabama by City of Montgomery Commissioner Sullivan, who alleges that newspaper published defamatory statements in a paid advertisement describing the maltreatment of African American students protesting segregation by the police force under Commissioner Sullivan's supervision. Sullivan argued that he was implicated in a false and defamatory advertisement because he oversaw the City police in his official capacity as City Commissioner. Commissioner Sullivan WON in the State Supreme court of Alabama, only to have that ruling over tuned by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Generally speaking the law does not regard the intent to inflict emotional distress as one which should receive much solicitude, and it is quite understandable that most if not all jurisdictions have chosen to make it civilly culpable where the conduct in question is sufficiently "outrageous." But in the world of debate about public affairs, many things done with motives that are less than admirable nonetheless are protected by the freedom of speech given in the First Amendment."

- Judge William Rhenquist

Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States.

"BUT THEY USE THE VILLAGE NAME AND LOGO"

With regards to using the Village Logo, whether it the OFFICIAL VILLAGE OF SAUK VILLAGE LOGO, or one that looks closely similar, this argument is baseless and meritless. This is spelled out in the Lanham Act, more commonly referred to as the Trademark Act of 1946. In this act, the general interest of the public by protecting consumers from false and misleading representations concerning the source, identity, or quality of a product or service. Secondly, the law protects the right of the owner of a trade or service mark to have his or her product or service identified by a distinct name or label.

The fact escapes Ringleader Trustee Debbie Williams, and the Fanatical 5 Trustees coalition that you CANNOT TRADEMARK A MUNICIPAL LOGO, SEAL, FLAG OR INSIGNIA! Nevermind the FACT, that the TAXPAYERS own and PAY FOR IT AND ITS OPERATIONS, this is nothing more than yet another attempt, by a desperate, contrite Trustee, to stifle speech and video taken at PUBLIC BOARD MEETINGS that is critical and opinionated in opposition of her coalition of Fanatical 5 Trustees even though that RIGHT is assured to everyone under the First Amendment.

SO JUST WHAT DOES THE LAW SAY?

Accordingly, the Lanham Act permits persons to apply to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") for federal trademark registration of their commercial mark(s), provided that certain parameters set forth therein are satisfied. The general rule is that a distinguishable mark on commercial goods and services can be trademarked unless the mark falls within one of five specified categories of marks as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)-(e)

One of those 5 excluding categories specifically 1052(b) which states “a mark that consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof” cannot be trademarked.

Tina Renna is /was a journalist in Union County, New Jersey, just south of Newark. She writes for The County Watchers blog and she also hosted a public access television program called Union County Citizen’s Forum, which seeks “to shine a critical light on the workings of the Union County Board of Chosen Freeholders.” The backdrop for her show consistent with its stated purpose, features a spotlight shining onto the Union County Seal. The seal, which is one of the most interesting municipal insignia in the country, as it depicts the 1780 murder of Hannah Caldwell, the wife of “rebel pastor” James Caldwell, at the hands of British soldiers during the Battle of Connecticut Farms.

In 2010, Union County officials decided to put a stop to Renna’s use of the seal for a program not officially affiliated with — and critical of — the municipality. Union County filed an application to register its seal with the USPTO, and then sent a cease-and-desist letter to Renna. Even after the trademark application was REJECTED by the USPTO, the County continued to send cease and desist correspondence to Renna, insisting that the seal enjoyed federal protection.  In 2011, with the parties at an impasse, Renna filed a declaratory judgment action in the District of New Jersey.

In that court case, Judge Kevin McNulty issued his opinion on Renna’s motion for summary judgment on May 29, 2014.  Not surprisingly, Judge McNulty followed the Federal Circuit as to the interpretation of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b) and held that Renna could not be liable for infringement of a registered mark under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, because the mark in question could not be registered.

However, Judge McNulty also declared that Renna likewise could not be liable even for infringement of an unregistered mark under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.  Without reference to the Federal Circuit’s dicta, Judge McNulty held that, even though registration is not a prerequisite for a Section 43(a) action, the unregistered mark in question still has to be a valid and enforceable one.  “As to that issue,” the Judge continued, “I think there is a difference between a mark that happens to be unregistered, and one that cannot be registered as a matter of law.” Judge McNulty held that the former is actionable under Section 43(a), but the latter is not.

SO WHO'S RIGHT?

There is an obvious conflict between the Federal Circuit’s dicta and Judge McNulty’s ruling.  A municipality seeking to protect itself against “pirates and cheats” could argue that Judge McNulty’s opinion is an example of bad facts making bad law. As Judge McNulty recounted, Union County officials were trying to use trademark law and unauthorized use of its seal to “stifle” the First Amendment rights of citizens and, in service of that impermissible objective, made multiple “misleading” statements of fact and law in its cease-and-desist letters. Additionally, Judge McNulty was careful to point out that, even if the seal had been protectable as a trademark, Renna did not infringe it because her use was for expressive political speech and not a use in any for profit business, commerce, or marketing of any product.

IN CONCLUSION

The repeated argument and LIES consistently brought up by at Village Board Meetings by Ringleader Trustee Debbie Williams, now joined by her DAUGHTER, Director of the Nancy L. McConathy Library Rosie Williams-Baig, who STILL lacks the prerequisite MASTER’S DEGREE for running the Village’s only Library can finally be put to rest. This Facebook page does NOT use the actual Official Village of Sauk Village logo! Even if it DID use the official Village logo, this page NEVER HAS and NEVER WILL conduct any commerce or the sale of goods and services for any monetary gain, with or without a Village Logo attached to it.

Yea...we do ALL THIS...FOR FREE!

Furthermore, and in spite of the Lanham Act which prohibits copyrighting “a mark that consists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof”, this is yet ANOTHER ATTEMPT by Ringleader Trustee Debbie Williams to stifle unpopular opinions of her, and apparently now, the NANCY L. McCONATHY PUBLIC LIBRARY, or the decisions and policy making of the Fanatical 5 Trustees or the Library Board.

Make no mistake residents of Sauk Village. What was it they said they were gonna do once they were elected? SUE THE MAYOR AND TAXPAYERS? That stunt cost taxpayers AT LEAST $34,000 DOLLARS in Court, so the Fanatical 5 Trustees could hire their "Ringer" for Village Administrator, only to turn around and FIRE HIM 10 MONTHS LATER for not firing people they wanted out of the Front Office.

In their FIRST YEAR IN OFFICE, Ringleader Trustee Debbie Williams, Trustee Gary Bell, Trustee Sherry Jasinski, and the coalition of Fanatical 5 Trustees joined by Trustee Berenice Brewer, and Linda Todd spent over $228,000 in LEGAL FEES with JUST ONE LAW FIRM! Yet NOW, they struggle to find money to replace FIRE HYDRANTS!

Is anyone paying attention? Maybe sitting at home and not voting wasn't such a good idea after all...OH, and by the way...Trustees Todd, Brewer, and Grant are all up for re-election April 6, 2021. Are you gonna sit this one out too Voters of Sauk Village?