Introduction to the Trademark Litigation

Introduction to the Name Litigation

In 1992, the San Francisco Bay Area SOS groups experienced a split over the abstinence issue. A number of the meetings, organized under the name "SOS West," broke off from SOS National. They rejected the basic SOS philosophy of across-the-board abstinence from alcohol and drugs, and adopted in its place the philosophy of abstaining only from "substances to which we are addicted." Originally an internal dispute only, this erupted in October-November 1992 into public controversy. The SOS West groups severed their ties with SOS National on Nov. 1, 1992. During 1993 and 1994, they sent a series of legal threats to local convenors of the meetings loyal to SOS National. In 1995, SOS National filed suit against the leaders of SOS West in federal court. Aided by a major San Francisco law firm, SOS West counter-sued. After a week-long trial in February, 1997, the judge ruled in favor of SOS West. She issued a permanent injunction forbidding groups affiliated with SOS National from using the name SOS or Secular Organizations for Sobriety or anything similar in Northern California. Enforcement of the injunction began in April, 1999. In May, 1999, the Northern California SOS groups met and voted to adopt the name LifeRing Secular Recovery.

You will find here the following resource material for understanding the litigation and its background:

An overview of the litigation written for '99 convention delegates by Marty N.
A selection of evidence used in the litigation, such as sworn declarations of witnesses, key documents, deposition testimony, and stipulated statements of fact. A detailed list is on the Evidence Index page.
The judge's Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Spells out how the judge saw the evidence and how she applied to the law to it, in reaching her decision to rule against SOS.
The injunction. This sets out what we are and are not allowed to do.
The enforcement letter. In April, The Firm representing SOS West sent a cease-and-desist letter, claiming that we were violating the injunction and threatening contempt hearings if we continued.
The name change announcement and a backgrounder.