Letter from The Firm

[LAW FIRM LETTERHEAD]

From: Alison B. Shames, Esq., Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, San Francisco

Dated: 4/13/99

To: Martin A. Nicolaus, Neely Karl Slinkard, George C. Griffin, SOS National Clearinghouse, LifeRing Press, Council for Secular Humanism

[Attached Exhibits omitted]

Gentlemen:

We are writing on behalf of our client, SOS West Secular Organizations for Sobriety, Inc. ("SOS West"). As you know, on October 10, 1997, United States District Court Judge Susan Illston granted a permanent injunction in favor of SOS West in the above-referenced matter against Secular Organizations for Sobriety, Inc. ("SOS, Inc."), those affiliated with SOS, Inc., and all those acting on behalf of, or in concert or participation with, SOS, Inc. It has come to our client's attention that SOS, Inc., and others bound by the injunction (including yourselves), arc not complying with the Court's order.

A copy of the injunction order is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 ("Court's Order"). As you are well aware, the injunction provides that SOS West has the exclusive right to use the names or marks "Secular Organizations for Sobriety" and "SOS" for purposes of holding meetings and offering recovery services in Northern California. The Court's Order also provides that if SOS, Inc., or those affiliated with SOS, Inc., and all those acting on behalf of, or in concert or participation with SOS, Inc., advertise or promote its services, or solicit for members or funds, they must prominently display the carefully worded notice set forth in Paragraph 1 (b) of the injunction.

We have reason to believe that SOS, Inc., and others bound by the injunction, are violating the Court's Order. First, weekly meetings or events apparently are held in Northern California under the names or marks "Secular Organizations for Sobriety" or "SOS." The groups in Oakland and Berkeley have a listed telephone number under the name "SOS Secular Organizations for Sobriety," and the recorded message states that "East Bay SOS" is "associated with the SOS Clearinghouse" in Los Angeles. A web site advertises these events and sets forth 11 different recovery meetings that convene weekly in the San Francisco Bay Area. See Exhibit 2. at 2-3. The convenors of the meeting in Berkeley state specifically that, "[t]his is a regular open meeting of SOS, Secular Organizations for Sobriety, Berkeley Meeting." Id. at 4. In addition to these weekly recovery meetings, the web site lists other "SOS" events and meetings that routinely take place in Northern California. Id. at 5?7. Further, under the name "Secular Sobriety," a flyer advertising an informational meeting was publicly distributed. The flyer notes that the meeting was "affiliated with Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS)." See Exhibit 3. The Court's Order specifically prohibits persons covered under the injunction from holding meetings or offering services under the names "SOS," "Secular Organizations for Sobriety," or any confusingly similar variations thereof. All of the meetings described above fall under this prohibited action and the persons holding these meetings are in clear violation of the permanent injunction.

Second, the 1999 International SOS Convention is scheduled to take place on September 11?12, 1999, in Berkeley, CA. The announcements for the 1999 SOS Convention prominently display the name "SOS." Attached as Exhibit 4 are advertisements for the convention. This upcoming convention blatantly contravenes the Court's Order. Although the convention does not appear to be a meeting in which the core services at issue in the injunction will be offered (i.e., recovery sessions), inherent in the event itself is the advertisement and promotion of the group's services as well as the solicitation for members and funds. The announcements for the convention do not contain the notice required by the Court's Order. This is a violation of the injunction.

Third, there are two different web sites that fly in the face of the Court's Order. A web site maintained by the Council for Secular Humanism advertises and solicits for members and funds in Northern California using the names "Secular Organizations for Sobriety" and "SOS" without any mention or display of the required notice. The "Secular Organizations for Sobriety (SOS) Home Page" (see Exhibit 5) indicates that "SOS is a subcommittee of the Council for Secular Humanism, a nonprofit corporation." Id. at 3. The injunction specifically binds the Council for Secular Humanism. See Exhibit 1 1. The web site advertises services, i.e., group meetings, and states that the "San Francisco Bay Area Chapter" maintains a web site of its own. See Exhibit 5, at 1?2. In addition, the web site solicits funds and states that, "[g]ifts to SOS are fully tax-deductible and should be made payable to 'SOS/Council for Secular Humanism."' Id. at 3. Despite using "SOS" and "Secular Organizations for Sobriety" to advertise and solicit funds, the web site makes no mention of the notice required by the Court's Order. It is evident that the publishers of this web site are not acting in compliance with the injunction.

Fourth, the second web site in violation of the Court's Order is called "the unofficial web 'zine of Secular Organizations for Sobriety/Save Our Selves." See Exhibit 2, at 1. Using the names "SOS" and Secular Organizations for Sobriety," this web site advertises and promotes its goods and services as well as solicits for members and funds -- all without prominently mentioning or displaying the required notice. For example, the web site advertises for the SOS International Newsletter and tells readers how to subscribe and/or send "extra donations." Id. at 8. In addition, this "unofficial" site provides information about meetings (both locally in Northern California and nationally), email lists, SOS news, SOS books, and links to other SOS sites. Id. at 1 (listing categories of information available on web site). Neither the "home page" of this web site nor any of the above-mentioned sections display the notice required by the Court's order. In fact, although the "home page" prominently states that "SOS stands for Secular Organizations for Sobriety or Save Our Selves," it fails to distinguish itself from SOS West. Id. To uncover the whereabouts of the Court's notice, a diligent search of the entire web site is required. A version of the Court's order is found buried deep within the web site, on an obscure page titled "About This Site." Id. at 9. This "notice" suffers from a host of inadequacies. Most egregious is that it is located in the depths of the web site so as not to be seen by the vast majority of the web site's viewers. Further, the paragraph is displayed in print significantly smaller than the body text of the web site. And, finally, the notice appears on just this one page, despite the numerous other pages within the web site in which "SOS" advertises its services and solicits members and funds.

The fifth violation of the Court's Order is a book published by LifeRing Press titled, Sobriety Handbook: The SOS Way: An Introduction to Secular Organizations for Sobriety/Save Our Selves (SOS)." See Exhibit 6 (selected pages). The book is available for sale, downloading, or viewing from the "web 'zine" described above. LifeRing Press, a successor to SOS, Inc., is clearly covered by the injunction. This book was published in 1997 and, despite its admission that "[w]ith current technology, updating a text is easier than ever" (id. at 4), the notice required by the Court's Order has not been added to the text. The authors of Sobriety Handbook most flagrantly violate the injunction in the chapter called "How To Start an SOS Meeting." For example, they provide the following advice on choosing a name for the group: "As SOS is our most well- recognized acronym, you may wish to include that. If you are able to get listings in the phone book, or other alphabetized guides, if you start them with "SOS" you will make it easier for other to find your listing." Id. at 7. Further, the text instructs the SOS groups to promote themselves and to solicit members via press releases, flyers, the internet, and advertisement. Id. at 8?10. Once again, no mention is made of the injunction or the required notice. In addition, the appendix of the book provides the following: a sample opening statement which uses the "SOS" name; a sample sign-in sheet for use at "SOS" meetings; a sample flyer announcing weekly "S.O.S., Secular Organizations for Sobriety" meetings; and a sample press release which describes "SOS" and uses the name "Secular Organizations for Sobriety." Id. at 11?21. Not only is the publisher of this book violating the Court's Order, but each page of the book invites the readers to further violate the injunction issued by the Court.

Under the circumstances, we demand that you immediately correct the current violations of the Court's Order and that you cease and desist from any further violations. To remedy your apparent breach, we demand the following: First, a prominent display (i.e., in large type and with no disparaging remarks) of the notice required by the Court on each page of the aforementioned web sites. Second, we demand an end to meetings being held in "Northern California" (as that phrase is defined in the Court's order) under the names or marks "Secular Organization for Sobriety," "SOS," or any confusingly similar variations thereof. SOS West does not intend for any meetings and group sessions to be discontinued; rather, the Court's order mandates, and we demand, that the meetings be held under a different name or mark. Third, we demand that the Sobriety Handbook immediately be revised--both the on-line and the softbound versions--so that the text includes an appropriate reference to the injunction and the Court-ordered notice is printed on each "sample" provided in the Appendix.

We wish to receive your assurances by April 28, 1999, that each of you will comply with the above-stated demands as well as with the Court's order in all respects. If you believe that we are mistaken in our convictions, we welcome your comments. If you fail to advise us by April 28, 1999 of either your plan to comply with our demands or your intentions to the contrary, we shall, without further notice to you, seek to hold all noncompliant parties in civil contempt of the Court's Order. We intend to pursue all remedies, including the imposition of a coercive sanction and the recovery of all fees and expenses, in the pursuit of obtaining your compliance with the Court's Order. We look forward to hearing from you by April 28, 1999.

Very truly yours,

Alison B. Shames