April 18, 2014

Evolutionism vs. Creationism Battle Over Trademark Rights

In a trademark battle reminiscent of the famous 1925 battle between Williams Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow, ScienceFriday, Inc., owner of an NPR science based radio show called SCIENCE FRIDAY, has filed suit against  the Bob Enyart and Fred Williams operators of creationist website and radio show operated under the brand REAL SCIENCE FRIDAY.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs have a radio program that has been broadcast for 22 years as well as podcasts, a website, a Twitter account and Facebook page.  The plaintiff’s arsenal appears to include several registered trademarks, including three SCIENCE FRIDAY marks registered for the radio show and podcast as well as a pending application for the website use.  The complaint further alleges that the defendants operate the website as well as a radio show by the same name and that the defendants distribute audio CDs and publish YouTube videos by the same name.

One can’t help but notice the painfully clear ideological differences between the parties.  The plaintiff’s website clearly displays a traditional approach to science (including evolution) while the defendant’s website is equally clearly geared to espousing a creationist viewpoint with such articles as Darwin Was Wrong about the Tree of Life.

The plaintiff’s website appears to cover a wide variety of science related issues, while the defendant’s website seems predominenantly focused on attempting to disprove evolutionism and supporting creationism.

The law suit alleges trademark infringement, unfair competition, false advertising, trademark dilution, and cybersquatting (including $100,000 for statutory damages).

While the case has only just begun and we have yet to hear the defendant’s side of the story, it does seem hard to understand how the defendant’s will prevail here.  This is point is particularly driven home when one consideres the defendant’s use of the tag line "Don’t Be Fooledby NPR’s parody titled Science Friday."  Solely from viewing the websites, it is hard to see how the defendant will go about legally demonstrating that the plaintiff’s website is a parody of the defendant’s website and even if this is true, how that might help the defendant’s case.

The saving grace for all concerned, I suppose, is that this case is (so far) solely about trademark issues and hopefully, unlike the Scopes Trial, this case will not be a trial on the merits of evolutionism vs. creationism.

© 2014 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Kurt E. Anderson, Intellectual Property Attorney,  Giordano Law Firm

In the area of intellectual property and technology law, Mr. Anderson guides clients through the complexities of trademark development, registration, licensing, infringement and policing. He also counsels clients regarding copyright registration, licensing and infringement. Mr. Anderson prepares, reviews and negotiates licensing and development agreements, supply and distribution agreements, independent contractor agreements and intellectual property related professional service agreements.

In the area of business and banking law, Mr. Anderson counsels closely held small to medium...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.