Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
× sues Courage Campaign Institute over logo

Cease and Desist

By Julia Rosen

Yes, really.

Following on the cease-and-desist letter sent us last week, the Prop 8 attorneys filed late yesterday in U.S. District Court a complaint and temporary restraining order asking a federal judge to order us to take our parody logo down.

I guess we all know the answer to the question: Do they have a sense of humor or are they that offended by stick figures in dresses? (see background on this silly dispute here)

The Prop 8 attorneys have requested a temporary restraining order (TRO) prior to the full ruling. The case has been assigned to Judge Lawrence K. Karlton and we are currently waiting to hear back if he he has either granted the TRO, denied the TRO, or opted for a hearing about the TRO.

Our MoFo attorneys (the short-hand name our lawyers at Morrison Foerster go by) worked the midnight oil to prepare an excellent Opposition statement filed before the court. Short version: No fricken’ way we are taking the logo down. As our lawyer said, our logo is a “sassy” parody of their logo.

We continue to be entertained by the Prop 8 attorneys simultaneously admitting that the two images of gay parents and straight parents are “substantially indistinguishable,” and yet failing to grasp that that the difference between the logos illuminates the core difference between their views and ours.

Here is their Complaint/TRO:

[scribd id=25495062 key=key-1fe2b4ed71e6mj1cdp12]

And our Opposition statement:

[scribd id=25493691 key=key-28u014ykfbpsq1owc5lx]

We issued a press release not long ago that had the following quotes from Rick Jacobs. Any and all bloggers are welcome to grab them and use them.

The Courage Campaign Institute will continue to focus our energy on this historic trial and the rights and protections at stake for loving, committed same-sex couples. can continue to expend time, energy and resources on a logo. Frankly, I think that says a lot about our respective priorities.

We thought that our response laying out the tremendous legal precedent in cases like this would be the end of this silliness. But we are more than happy to defend our case if Prop 8 supporters continue to argue that the difference between their logo and ours is “substantially indistinguishable,” given that their logo features a father and mother and our logo features two mothers.

This is yet another attempt by Prop 8 supporters to distract from the facts being brought forth at this trial that are demonstrating quite clearly both the discrimination same-sex couples face and the need and benefit to society of equal treatment under the law.

And here are the two logos.



Just so we are clear on intent. We asked our graphic designer for a lesbian couple, not two men in drag.



  • 1. Andrew  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Wow. Good luck, not that you should need it.

  • 2. Michael Herman  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:06 am

    They're actually suing. They have now proven just how truly desperate they are to prove themselves right in ANY way they can. Too bad they're wrong here too. XD

  • 3. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:08 am

    I guess they are unfamiliar with Fair Use Doctrine over in Prop 8 land … and this most assuredly falls under the category thereof.

  • 4. Patrick Regan  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:11 am

    IANAL but that is what I thought as well. It's a clear parity in my mind.

  • 5. FishyFred  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:14 am

    Lots of people think they know what fair use entails when they really have no idea.

    1. The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

    Obviously, this site is okay here.

    2. The nature of the copyrighted work

    Irrelevant here.

    3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

    They do look VERY similar and, had I seen the Yes on 8 logo before I ever came to this site, I would have confused them the first time. The theme of the site is EXACTLY the same.

    4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

    The aforementioned confusion can potentially hurt and confuse people who are looking for Yes on 8.

    I think it's very close.

  • 6. waxr  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:13 am

    You are correct. I do not think that the issue is as clear cut as either party puts it. However, one point that you omitted is how original the logo is. The figures of the women and children are simply drawn. There is little originality in the design. It you can find other illustrations which display the women and children in this way, it could go a long ways to winning the case.

  • 7. Dean Cameron  |  December 8, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Both Logos are nearly identical to the "City of Hope" Logo… but they seem to be too busy trying to cure cancer to bother with suing anybody.

  • 8. fred  |  January 21, 2010 at 11:34 am

    You're discussing an entirely inapplicable body of law. The COPYRIGHT fair use factors that you list are not applicable, whatsoever, in a trademark infringement case.

    The issue is whether the Courage Campaign's logo is a lawful parody of the logo. Even the TRADEMARK fair use analysis is not applicable.

  • 9. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:14 am

    For those unfamiliar with principles of the Fair Use Doctrine:

    Quote (emphasis mine): The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.”

  • 10. Andrew  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:15 am

    Be careful not to confuse trademark fair use with copyright fair use. They aren't the same thing.

    Trademark fair use is more about making sure you can call a fruit an apple, nevermind the fact that Apple is a trademark of that computer company. It might be less applicable here than you may think.

  • 11. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:18 am

    There are some rather confusing differences; thanks for making the point.

  • 12. FishyFred  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:19 am

    If they call the Yes on 8 logo a trademark, you might be right, but I would be curious to find out if it even qualifies to be a trademark.

    I'm guessing some of you will say, "They are substantially different! One has a man and a woman and the other has two women!" Yeah, well, they're stick figures. Androgyny comes with the terriroty.

  • 13. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:27 am

    This is true, but I don't think it matters necessarily because trademarks used in satire have still traditional been protected, and because one of the key things in trademark cases is the likelihood of confusion (which is absent here).

  • 14. Andrew  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:31 am

    See…. for an introduction. Particularly relevant here might be the Hard Rock case, although trial tracker's parody probably has more of a "message" than they did.

    The tricky bit will be the judge could easily find that they have enough chance of prevailing at trial to issue a TRO, which would force removing the logo for the duration of *this* trial.

  • 15. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:21 am

    The "Hard Rock" case was addressed in MoFo's response. Actually, it's sort of funny — I was not aware of the Hard Rain case, but made an almost identical point as MoFo did in the thread a few days ago when the C&D letter first came out: I said that it would be different if someone were selling T-shirts with the modified logo, because then it is a commercial infringement, and the courts tend to look more harshly on that.

    Also, reading some info on the Hard Rain case, part of why the court sided with the plaintiffs there was not just because it was commercial and virtually indistinguishable, but they could find no justification for why it was a "parody" in the sense that it was making a social commentary on the trademark or something associated with it. In other words, they weren't saying anything about Hard Rock Cafe, so how could it be a "parody" in that sense? This is obviously very different…

  • 16. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:32 am

    Generally, however, an absence of likelihood of confusion results in a permissible parody and a finding of no trademark infringement. For example, the Ninth Circuit failed to find confusion with the use of the mark "Bagzilla" on "monstrously strong" garbage bags despite the objections from the owner of the movie monster character mark "Godzilla." A florist's use of "This Bud's For You" for fresh-cut flowers was held not to infringe Anheuser Busch's slogan as there was no likelihood of confusion. Finally, "Lardashe" as a mark for large size women's pants was determined, by the federal court in New Mexico, not to infringe the "Jordache" mark because of a lack of likelihood of confusion.….

    In other words, substantial similarity is necessary but not sufficient. Hell, the "This Bud's For You" slogan was indentical, not even just "substantially similar", and the court still ruled that it was not infringement because the likelihood of confusion was nil.

    The facts that in case a) there is virtually no likelihood of confusion, b) there is no commercial gain derived from the logo, and c) the nature of the social commentary on the object of the parody is painfully obvious, all of those together make it seem to me highly unlikely for the case to succeed. It's not impossible, but it seems unlikely.

    And anyway, even if they get the injunction (not likely given that the "irreparable harm" here is totally illusory), it will be difficult to show damages. What, do they want all of the hits to prop8trialtracker? heh…

  • 17. Andrew  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:49 am

    Ah, good points. Especially since the logo here parodies the other logo, not something entirely unrelated (rain). I haven't been able to read the filings, so it's nice to know that case was addressed.

  • 18. drjams  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Huh…interesting cause I took the first logo as a butch lesbian and a femme lesbian couple with kids and the second logo as two femmes…

  • 19. Christopher  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:09 am

    I wonder if the Prop 8 lawyers have ever heard of the Streisand Effect….

  • 20. Vaati  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:52 am

    They would sort of be asking for it wouldn't they? πŸ™‚ They have been trying to suppress this whole trial, it wouldn't be too surprising if their attempts to bring us into another courtroom over the 'Indistinguishable' differences between the straight and lesbian family logos achieved more sympathy and support for our side.

    Just wish they would say the couples were indistinguishable in *this* courtroom when it comes time to defend themselves. Would save the court a lot of time in determining who's position really can be changed, and who is really the victim here. Kudos for posting that link!

  • 21. Rebecca  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:10 am

    I hope we get to see this case televised. It will be enjoyable watching them get laughed out of court.

  • 22. FishyFred  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:10 am

    I'm kind of in love with the fact that there is a firm that goes by the nickname "MoFo."

  • 23. Rachael Lamkin  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Not only do they go by MoFo, but they are some of the smartest lawyers in the planet. And so cool about their gay fellow attorneys and staff that they made hats that say "Homo at MoFo." Rightous!

  • 24. TrapperSF  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:11 am

    I saw something about this on the local San Francisco news a few nights ago (I think it was the CBS affiliate KPIX, Channel 5). I was like, this is old news everyone, but it seems to have leaked out to the media now.

  • 25. ashleyfmiller  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:12 am

    Can someone call Rachel Maddow? Also, I thought it was two men in drag and now I am sad πŸ˜‰

  • 26. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:16 am

    Ashley, I am going to my email and contacting Rachel now. And Keith Olberman. They will both get a laugh.

  • 27. ashleyfmiller  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:36 am

    I just really want to hear her say " is suing Courage Campaign, saying a lesbian couple is indistinguishable from a heterosexual one. In other news, continues to argue that homosexuals are too different from heterosexuals to deserve equal protection under the law."

    I twittered @ her, but I doubt she reads those, so awesome on you.

  • 28. Roberta K  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:48 am

    I think Rachel did cover it sometime last week, in the midst of all the Haiti coverage — got to admit the tragedy there puts a lot of stuff in perspective.

  • 29. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:13 am

    Just goes to show how tightly their panties are wadded, I guess.

  • 30. Cj  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:15 am

    I noticed that in the first letter, there logo is shown properly but the trial tracker logo is blurred and of poorer quality. When you have one of them blurred then they would definitely look similar. But so would a blurred picture of a cat thats been spray painted!

  • 31. David R.  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:16 am

    This was hilarious! Thank you so much for brightening my day with making it clear its a lesbian couple not two men in drag!

    Way to go! I have been advertising your non profit in every social medium I have!

    Keep up the work on behalf of everyone.

    – David in Ohio

  • 32. Russ C  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:17 am

    The text on the Yes on 8 logo is clearly navy blue, while the text on the Prop 8 Trial tracker is a classic blue. I don't see how anyone with a sensible eye could confuse the two logos.

  • 33. Bill  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:18 am

    As I said in a previous post, this is NOT a lesbian couple.

    It is simply a heterosexual family whose dad spilled a beer on his T-shirt and he had to borrow one from his wife.

    The T-shirt the dad is now wearing simply has a more feminine silhouette.

    See, it's all good.

    The beer stained t-shirt is in the wash, and soon… all will be well with the world again.

  • 34. waxr  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:35 am

    The Protect marriage logo has two gay men, one of them in drag. We have to wait for the children to get older and decide what they want to be.

  • 35. Tim  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:58 am

    "We have to wait for the children to get older and decide what they want to be"

    Wrong use of words!

    That implies that homsexuality is chosen and it is not!
    I understand what you mean and it is humorus, BUT the ignorant folks out in the "yes on 8" universe will take it as a confession! And take it to court.
    Disclaimer: Being homosexual IS NOT a choice!
    No more than race is…

  • 36. Rick Heintz  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:19 am

    I checked out their website to see what they were saying about the trial and I found it laughable to say the least. And I also found it quite interesting to see that comments have been turned off. They truly are first class tools.

  • 37. Dick Mills  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:20 am

    They are now protecting the "sanctity of logos!" Just think of the children…

  • 38. karen in kalifornia  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:21 am

    LOL. I always thought the little heads of the father and mother in the anti gay ProtectMarriage yes on 8 logo looked like nipples suggesting boobs. Talk about subliminal. Wonder if the ProtectMarriage folks will own up to that.

  • 39. Dieter M.  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:05 am

    LOL..never noticed that but yes indeed….their logo to protect marriage appears to have a clear depiction of two ENORMOUS breats.LOL..
    logo obviously created by a straight man.

  • 40. Randy  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:23 am

    Ok I am not a lawyer at all and have not looked at docs like these filings in depth before, but is a section "Prayer for relief" a normal section?

  • 41. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:26 am

    In legal terms, it just means "this is what we are asking."

  • 42. Linda Gray  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:23 am

    I wonder if they're also planning to sue whoever it is that's using @protectmawwiage as a Twitter handle.

  • 43. Lisa  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:57 am

    excellent account!

    + 1 follower


  • 44. Jen  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:01 am

    Mawwiage. Mawwiage Is what bwings us twogehwaah twooday!

  • 45. James Sweet  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:25 am’s only argument is that Prop 8 case being discussed and commented on by the Courage Campaign Institute website will soon be over. This is a ludicrous argument for irreparable injury, and is tantamount to a plaintiff claiming, “I believe the defendant’s actions will stop soon of his own accord, therefore the court should order him to stop now before the matter is moot.


  • 46. Steffi  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:26 am

    let's thank them for keeping us entertained πŸ˜€

  • 47. hahnathome  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:28 am

    I think it's a brilliant parody and hopefully effective.

    I need MoFo attorneys and will keep them on my short list.

  • 48. PM, in the UK  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:31 am


    Does this kind of legal 'issue' cost Courage Campaign much money?

    Re: James – yep, that was my favorite part too.

  • 49. Alan E.  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:53 am

    If we win, it costs us nothing.

  • 50. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Shouldn't we be counter suing them for legal costs?

  • 51. Kevin  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:33 am

    ROFL. OMG they are so desperate and low. That's hilarious!

  • 52. ksf  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:33 am

    Maybe we should let Novartis Corporation know that the Prop 8 people were infringing on Novartis' TM'd logo from their product Voltaren Gel


  • 53. kate  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:35 am

    Can anybody post the Oppositions TRO letter/statement thing? Or if anyone from courage campaign can email it to me, along with our response? It's not showing up on either of the computers i've tried, nor when i follow the link.

    I'd be forever grateful!


  • 54. Tea Dough  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:47 am


    My goodness, this really does make them come off very desperate.

    Last time I checked, we were all adults dealing with a (discrimination) trial. Little did I know, we would also have to deal with childish bullshit….

    wait…nevermind, this trial is bullshit, too.

    my bad.

  • 55. Tea Dough  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:48 am

    by the way, don't you dare use the term "God" if you don't believe in (their) God.

    They might sue you for that, too.

  • 56. Roberta K  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Well, I've always said that if/when Jesus comes back, the first thing He needs to do is get a good Jewish lawyer and sue some folks for defamation of character…

  • 57. Tea Dough  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:55 am

    amen to that!

    ok, i'm still laughing over this logo nonsense.

  • 58. Lies  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:03 am

    I think if/when Jesus comes back, he's gonna be appalled by what people are doing supposedly in his name. If Jesus were alive today, he'd totally and without a doubt be on our side. Tolerance, anyone? Acceptance?


  • 59. Wendy  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:02 am

    I'm a Christian (and a lawyer) and I'd represent Jesus in that case.

  • 60. Lies  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:50 am

    Wow, they sound so articulate and reasonable! I am so impressed by the strength of their arguments! I am sure everyone on here is practically shaking with fear by now!

    No, seriously. What? Desperate much?

  • 61. Anita  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:53 am

    LOL…I think that's a lovely lesbian couple! I just saw someone's @protectmawwage twitter name and almost fell out of my chair!

    "Mawwage. Mawwage is wot bwings us togeder tooday.
    Mawwage, that bwessed awwangment, that dweam wifin a dweam…"

  • 62. Pagan Ryan  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:19 am

    I did a hand fasting ceremony for a couple of my friends a year or so ago and managed to slip "mawwage" into their vows. The knew it was coming, too, which made it even better! =)

  • 63. Linda  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:56 am

    I think the logo is a hetero couple, but the dad is in drag!

  • 64. Leslie  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:57 am

    What?!? WAIT!! This site isn't a Sister site to the Protect Marriage campaign, and isn't 100% committed to trying to convince the America Public that gay people are evil and bad? Everything I've been reading has been in SUPPORT of same-sex marriage? WHY DID NO ONE TELL ME THAT?!?!?

    Oh!! OH!!!!!!!!! Oh Maude please help me, I just realized that I've been POISONED! POISONED I say, by these horrifying assertions that "GAY is GOOD," poisoned to the point that *gasp!* I actually now find myself believing that same sex marriage is JUST and FAIR and VALUABLE. I'm melting… melllltinnnnnnnng……


  • 65. Ozymandias  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:27 am


    OMG this thread is totally awesome!

  • 66. Katie  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Funny how they shriek about Activist Judges (TM) and expression of free speech, and yet guess who goes running to said Activist Judges to CENSOR freedom of speech?

    Keep digging your hole, fundies. It's entertaining.

  • 67. nightshayde  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:27 am

    Now now, Katie. They're only "activist judges" if they rule against a right-wing person/group/policy/law. If they rule against a liberal person/group/policy/law, they're either "just doing their job" or "doing God's work." Sheesh!

  • 68. James  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Anything to draw attention away from what really matters here….

  • 69. The Reverend Susan R  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:58 am

    Ready, Set … BLOG! This is amazing!

  • 70. Eddie89  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:03 am

    On "their" logo, I see no [R], or [C] or [TM]

    In other words, their logo is NOT a registered trademark.

    How can they claim infrigement?

  • 71. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:36 am

    Oooh … most excellent point.

    That takes it back to copyright matters, because copyright is implied and trademark is *express.* So, we're back to the copyright Fair Use article, and the parody issue.

  • 72. Jane  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:04 am

    I still want CC logo on a T-Shirt!

  • 73. Roy  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I hope Jewish Family Services goes and sues ProtectMarriage over THEIR logo…seems the PM loons stole it from them….hmmmmm

  • 74. MarkOH  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:07 am

    Are the Prop 8 people concerned that their supporters can't read and MAY confuse this site for the hate-promoting Prop 8 one?

  • 75. evenevan  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:13 am

    LOL–great minds think alike!

  • 76. Alan E.  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:55 am

    There was that one guy who said it took him 20 minutes to figure it out.

  • 77. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:58 am

    And he was an obvious troll from NOM et al.

  • 78. evenevan  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:12 am

    I'd like to point out to the "ProtectMarriage" folks that if you actually READ the text on the logos, it's pretty OBVIOUS that they're different.


  • 79. Lies  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:37 am

    Then again, can the majority of these people actually read? Hmmm. No. Education, you see, is an evil liberal plot to take over the world.

  • 80. michael  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:10 am


  • 81. Josh  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:17 am

    Oh please, we ALL know that Protect Marriage is actually SUPER JEALOUS that you're getting way more hits while the trial is going on. πŸ˜›


    You can't gain equality by sitting quietly in the wings.

  • 82. Dieter M.  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:19 am

    I just wrote an email to protect to complain that thier logo appears to be depicting two very large breasts. (Note the two dots of the adults heads appear to be nipples on a set of two GINORMOUS breasts..LOL.) another poster pointed that out, so I complained that i could never support a group that uses pornography to describe itself…LOL
    doubt I will get a reply.

  • 83. Pagan Ryan  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:22 am

    LMAO!! I doubt you will, but here's hoping that you do! I'd LOVE to see what they have to say (read: deny) about it!

  • 84. Andrew  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:31 am

    Heh, if nothing else, the person who reads that email will have a hard time not seeing it every day from now on.

  • 85. Sheryl Carver  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:29 am

    Way to go, Dieter!

  • 86. jstueart  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:22 am

    Hmm. I think their logo is a take off of Habitat for Humanity.

  • 87. Dieter M.  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:38 am

    PROP 8 TRIAL "SCRIPT DOCTORS" NEEDED! is already in production to re-enact each day of the trial. Each day, we monitor a range of blogs covering the trial and create a composite transcript, then format that into a script. Mid-day, we create cue-sheets, cast and call the actors. At 7:00 pm, we film at a replica courtroom in Hollywood.

    If you are following this trial as closely as we are, we invite you to join our SCRIPT DOCTOR team. Let's pool our collective observation skills and shape-up each day's script! E-mail me now at [email protected] and login to our GoogleDoc during the trial. See you online!

    youtube trial re-enactments are loading right now….i will be back with a link!!!! wooohooo

  • 88. ashleyfmiller  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:06 am

    Awesome. I really want a bound copy of the transcripts along with charts of the statistics and graphs they're using.

    I would definitely buy one of those.

  • 89. nightshayde  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:31 am

    Hopefully, some would be upside-down in the binder just like in real life.


  • 90. proudprogressive  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:40 am

    you ROCK and so do the MoFo's !

  • 91. ShannonHohn  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:39 am

    HILARIOUS! There, now you have the humor that is a requirement for parody….

  • 92. Randy  |  January 20, 2010 at 5:57 am

    Gotta love the bigots…. now they are crying they are a protected class…. have been doing trademark law for 25 yrs and this case takes the cake… in fact, the case is frivolous… in fact, the law provides for the disbarrment of the attorneys who filed such a frivolous case…

  • 93. proudprogressive  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:42 am

    From your mouth to the American Bar Association's EARS

  • 94. Roy  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:02 am

    what's next? Are they going to try to trademark the word 'marriage'?

  • 95. Wendy  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:07 am

    Welll. they do want to protect Marriage (TM)…

  • 96. Alex O'Cady  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:05 am

    ""…..I love how they spellcheck their legal documents.

  • 97. Mike  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:22 am

    That right there? That's grounds for appeal.

  • 98. premium310  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:10 am

    Not sure why the Courage Campaign would go anywhere near taking a cheap shot that is guaranteed to draw a lot of petty, negative attention–? Copying their logo seems so juvenile–like mimicking or namecalling just to antagonize…just as the character of our community is being scrutinized by the justice system and our fellow Americans.

    Don't we have TOO MUCH at stake not to run a completely blameless campaign (for a righteous cause that stands entirely on its own merit)? I think this was badly done. Please use my contribution to tap some imagination and change this logo to something that expresses our community's unique and separate high road to marriage equality.

  • 99. Ozymandias  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:36 am

    "Not sure why the Courage Campaign would go anywhere near taking a cheap shot that is guaranteed to draw a lot of petty, negative attention–?"

    Actually, the attention seems pretty positive… besides we've got MoFo attorneys on our side! We rock!!! *snicker*

  • 100. Dieter M.  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:11 am

    PROP 8 TRIAL "SCRIPT DOCTORS" NEEDED! is already in production to re-enact each day of the trial. Each day, we monitor a range of blogs covering the trial and create a composite transcript, then format that into a script. Mid-day, we create cue-sheets, cast and call the actors. At 7:00 pm, we film at a replica courtroom in Hollywood.

    If you are following this trial as closely as we are, we invite you to join our SCRIPT DOCTOR team. Let's pool our collective observation skills and shape-up each day's script! E-mail me now at [email protected] m and login to our GoogleDoc during the trial. See you online!

    youtube video is uploading right now…will be back with the link

  • 101. krwlos1  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:16 am

    you guys really undermined your organization's credibility by doing something as juvenile as copying the other side's logo. i'm really disappointed. the two logos are virtually impossible to tell apart. i've been coming to this site because i've appreciated the liveblogging, but i think i may have to find another source. it's an embarrassment.

  • 102. krwlos1  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:24 am

    it's one probably the most serious civil rights trial in our lifetime and you're using a "sassy parody" logo as the face of your page documenting it. embarrassing.

  • 103. proudprogressive  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:49 am

    hey we know they shut your comments down over thar – let us worry about our own embarrassment , as it is , the logo is already been stolen by the protectors side. And their attorneys seem to be grad E ates of the Jerry Falwell school of Christian Law for dummies. too bad , too sad. But you care soooo much doncha ?

  • 104. fiona64  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:58 am

    Hmm. kwroth1 from the SacBee??

  • 105. Rachael Lamkin  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:33 am

    Oh honey, there's always room for a little sassy parody; don't you know anything about us gays besides what you read in your own little memoranda?

  • 106. Jane  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:43 am

    Wow, how about you grow a sense of humor. Lighten up.

  • 107. Vaati  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:20 am

    I'm sure future generations will appreciate that we had a sense of humor about all of this. When you can't laugh at the issue or yourself we have a problem. Besides, we've been laughing our way through most of their ridiculous and offensive moves against us. Just take a look. πŸ˜›

    The Gathering Storm (Parody)

    Prop 8 the Musical

  • 108. Doug in Long Beach  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:48 am

    Premium310 and krwlos1…… jeesh… lighten up already. You don't think that PM hasn't done anything juvenile before during and after Prop8? This logo is only poking fun at PM and needs to be taken as such. I find it ironic that PM would even spend monies on this issue. But I have no problem with them spending their monies here. At least they won't be using that money to spread more hate in other states trying to suppress the gays. The more money they spend on stupid things like this the less they will have for prop8 defense.

  • 109. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:07 am

    Oh, really? The two logos are that similar to you? then maybe you need to see an eye doctor. Especially now that they have changed theirs to a gingerbread family.

  • 110. Jon Evans  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:17 am

    I say we create stickers of the logo and disperse them to everyone we know that supports SSM as a form of protest- anyone have a budget or wish to make a donation? I will find someone who can make them! Isnt there a sticker company in Marin? (hopefully not a Yes on 8 supporter)


  • 111. Michelle C  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:18 am

    Has anyone else noticed that the trial blog on has comments turned off? Are they afraid of a little truth?

  • 112. nightshayde  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:33 am

    They're afraid. They're very afraid. Truth gives them hives.

    *nods seriously*

  • 113. nightshayde  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:35 am

    From the fact that the logo is sill firmly in place, I'm guessing the TRO hasn't been approved.

    I think we should have hats/pins/t-shirts. They could even say in teeny-tiny print that Courage Campaign in no way has anything to do with the asshats most super excellent people at

  • 114. couragecampaign  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:38 am

    We haven't gotten a decision from Judge Karlton. Three ways this can go.

    1) He approves the TRO
    2) He denies the TRO
    3) He calls for a hearing on the TRO

    Then of course there is still the lawsuit.


  • 115. nightshayde  |  January 20, 2010 at 6:54 am

    If he denies the TRO, can "they" appeal, or do they just go on grumbling about how they're being victimized?

    Thank you all for putting together this blog. It's always so nice to see how many bright, reasonable people are on our side. =)

  • 116. Chris Augerson  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:13 am

    I really did laugh out loud when I first realized your logo parodied that of the opposition. I find this very humorous, even though protect marriage does not. It is clearly a parody.

  • 117. Richard W. Fitch  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:15 am

    One distraction after another. What does this say about the validity of ANY of their arguments?

  • 118. Rachael Lamkin  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:22 am

    I used to clerk for LKK and there is no way he's giving the hate mongers a TRO. Second they can't show likelihood of success on the merits, so no TRO. And they won't like appearing in front of LKK, who is very fair to right or left but you better bring it, and they simply haven't broughten it

  • 119. Ozymandias  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:34 am

    Oh man, I'm dying here… *snicker* *snort*

    I think the other side is just jealous – I mean come on, we've got attorneys representing us called the MoFo!

    Go get 'em MoFo's!

  • 120. Gary S  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:45 am

    Too rich for words.

  • 121. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:35 am

    And Rachel, who ever said that the LGBTQ community does NOT have a sense of humor? Whoever said that didn't know us very well, did they? And that is the problem with the Prop8 supporters. They don't know us at all. They only know what their propagandists put out for them. Propagandist that they are paying, who will say whatever they want. After all, he who pays the piper, calls the tune of the dance. But this frivolity DOES reinforce just how deparately afraid they are.

  • 122. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:36 am

    Alright! The bigots lost! Baruch HaShem! Long live the TRUTH!

  • 123. activecitizen54  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:49 am

    It's not at all surprising that these Cults of Jesus want to suppress free speech in all forms. They have to keep ignorance and need for their Theocracy to thrive.

    Keep up the great work and I did understand that it was two lesbians and not men in drag; we have better taste in shoes….

    Love you all. Thanks for the hard work…

  • 124. Amy Balliett  |  January 20, 2010 at 9:52 am

    They say in their letter that this can't be parody because it's not funny?! It might not be funny to them, but when I first saw it I was LMFAO :-)… A parody is in the eye of the beholder I guess, but again, that's the art of a parody.

  • 125. M S  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:10 am

    Okay, and has anybody else noticed that the current logo published on now consists of YELLOW stick/gingerbread people? (As opposed to the BLUE people at issue in the TRO.)

    And does it make ANY difference at all that the full banner/header of the respective websites are COMPLETELY different in both text and photos– i.e., "Holding the right wing accountable" + pic of (inter-racial) male-male couple cuddling small child + "A Porject of Courage Campaign Institute (and corresponding logo) vs. "Protect Marriage ACTION FUND… Help protect marriage. Yes, I support traditional marriage. Keep me aware of any way I can help." + pic of (Asian) hetero couple cuddling with small child.

    I, for one, had no idea the Protect Marriage trademark existed before the cease and desist letter made it to the LiveBlog here at Courage Campaign. It's not like the Coca-Cola symbol or McDonald's Golden Arches. And besides, when interested people go looking for info on the Prop 8 trial, they can't enter an IMAGE into the search engine. To act like innocent people went looking specifically for the stylized cartoon and got suckered by the sly hand of Courage Campaign con artists or deliberately misdirected to the Queer Little Piggies' Coin Bank is pure lunacy.

  • 126. Tim  |  January 20, 2010 at 10:22 am

    I understand what the courage campain is doing by poking fun at the bigots logo but I hated that logo! It brings back bad memories! Although its funny, I vote for a different one.

  • 127. Richard  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:11 am

    What sort of bad memories, Tim? this is the place to share them. This is the Internet safehouse.

  • 128. Tim  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    Richard, As I drove through my community or stood in a huge crowd the day after the "Eve of justice" march in San Francisco I saw that logo printed on signs and it made me feel that I was was being singled out, unknown,miss understood,disliked,discriminated against, by people that did not know me.They did not understand that all I feel is love yet they don't care because I do not matter! It was like my
    neighbor down the street (yes,right down the street) might as well have put a sign in their front yard depicting, "Tim is a pervert" or "Tim is less than human and a second class citizen"! It hurt! All I really wanted to do (even though it made me angry as well) was walk up to the door and tell them that if they new me as a "person" and not as a "gay" they would think twice about what they were doing. At forty three I learned what discrimination actually felt like! I hate that lawn sign! It hurt…

  • 129. One Word: Frivolous&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:56 am

    […] Courage Campaign sends word that they are being sued by the Yes on 8 team — — over the logo […]

  • 130. Liveblogging Day 7: Part &hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 12:25 pm

    […] sues Courage Campaign Institute over logo […]

  • 131. Mike  |  January 20, 2010 at 1:19 pm

    I love how shabbily written are the Prosecution’s legal letters. Goodness me, that’s a horrid accusation. They appear to be written entirely by a law clerk.

    To be frank, it wouldn’t surprise me if they were drafted simply to scare you into taking down the “offending” image.

    If this does ever see the light of court, the prop 8 trial will be over and done with, and you’ll have no reason to continue use of the logo; and you’ll just settle outside of court.

    Your lawyers appear sensible, so I hope this goes places. You may lose in a courtroom tried by your peers, but you’ve certainly got a case.

  • 132. Restraining Order denied:&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 4:23 pm

    […] for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to take down our logo on the Trial Tracker. (background here and […]

  • 133. Daily Prop 8 Update: The &hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 7:01 pm

    […] on a slightly more entertaining note, is suing the Courage Campaign to stop their satirical use of their logo and a judge refused a temporary […]

  • 134. Chris Tuttle  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:49 pm

    Julia, can you add an image to this posting that has both Logo Versions in 1 actual side-by-side comparison so that we can post about it on Facebook and show the differences? Right now we have to choose 1 over the other to display.

  • 135. Liveblogging Day 7: Daily&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 8:51 pm

    […] kind of odd, but the guys from Protect Marriage who are suing Courage for our logo on this blog are sitting behind me in the witness chairs in this upstairs courtroom where we’ve […]

  • 136. Outside the Courtroom: β€&hellip  |  January 20, 2010 at 11:40 pm

    […] updates on the Prop 8 fight happening outside the courtroom. First, Protect Marriage has just sued the Courage Campaign for what it says is trademark infringement. At issue is the logo (on the left) […]

  • 137. Did Andy Pugno Break Stat&hellip  |  January 29, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    […] As longtime Trial Trackers know, Pugno also played a key role in trying get this website shut down by suing Courage Campaign over the logo we use at this […]

  • 138. This Really Bothers Me &l&hellip  |  June 22, 2010 at 5:27 pm

    […] banning cameras in the courtroom and striking testimony from the record to seeking to shut down the Prop 8 Trial Tracker and disabling comments on their Facebook wall (maybe the pro-equality comments were too much for […]

  • 139. fern  |  June 22, 2010 at 10:55 pm

    I was mistaken by this logo I was entirely hetero and anti-gay, and since I read your misleading comments I've left my wife and ten kids for a boyfriend.
    I'm happy when they're unhappy (NOM).

  • 140. sues &hellip  |  July 7, 2010 at 11:41 am

    […] I would think they would know better that this parody is allowed, but….. Β The Pro 8 people don’t like to be made fun off Posted in DMCA, gay couples, life planning | Leave a […]

  • 141. forexbroker&hellip  |  November 8, 2011 at 10:50 am


    […]Prop 8 Trial Tracker » sues Courage Campaign Institute over logo[…]…

  • 142. demotivator&hellip  |  November 9, 2011 at 5:18 am


    […]Prop 8 Trial Tracker » sues Courage Campaign Institute over logo[…]…

  • 143. blog  |  March 4, 2014 at 3:44 pm

    It’s fun to find out something brand-new. Not everything was clear to me, but I’m so happy that enlightened my mind.

    Here is my webpage; blog

  • 144. mobile sex video  |  April 6, 2014 at 10:15 pm

    Hi there, all is going well here and ofcourse every one is sharing information, that’s genuinely excellent, keep up writing.

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!