Judgment Rendered in the Weiss Case
November 13, 1975
BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION named Urantia FOUNDATION,
With its principal place of Business at 533 Diversey Parkway, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.,
represented by Mr. Alain LE TARNEC, attorney at law andMr.Jacques Weiss, Engineer,
residing at 1, rue d'Argenson, Paris,
the Corporation ROMAND & BEURLL,
located at 14, rue des Meuniers, Paris,
represented by Mr. Paul VILLARD, attorney at law,
the firm S.A.R.L. DERVY-LIVRES,
located at 6, rue de Savoie, Paris, NOT APPEARINGTHE COURT
Sitting in a public hearing, after the case had been discussed in a public hearing on September 25, 1975, before Mr. GRONIER Assistant Chief Justice, Mrs. Beteille and Mr. Schawin, Judges, assisted by CAYREL, Secretary and Clerk of the Court, and after the matter was deliberated by the magistrates who attended the discussions, has handed down in a FIRST APPEAL the following decision considered as having been reached after all parties have been heard;
Whereas Urantia FOUNDATION, located in Chicago, USA, is an association under American law, created in 1950, whose by-laws essentially state that .... its founders having received approximately 2,200 plates of stereotype prepared from the manuscript of the Urantia BOOK (BOOK of Urania) for printing ... the principal objective of the Association is to promote, improve and distribute among the peoples of the World, the understanding and comprehension of Cosmology and the relation to the Universe of the planet on which we are living, of the creation and destiny of Man and his relation with God and of the veritable teachings of Jesus Christ .... and whose concordant objectives are to perpetually maintain unviolated the text of the Urantia Book and to disseminate the principles, teachings and doctrines of Urantia. . . .the Administrators of the Foundation having as their task primarily the preservation of the absolute and unconditional control of all the plates and other means for the printing and reproduction of the Urantia Book and of all its translations.
Whereas The Urantia Book (entitled in the French translation: "The Cosmogony of Urantia") is presented well in agreement on this point, as a work revealed around 1935 by the Supreme Power and dictated in the English language to a group of mortals who were anxious to remain anonymous and who entrusted another group of mortals with the mission of creating the above defined Foundation; whereas this book includes four parts with the following titles: the first one "The Central Universe and the Superuniverse", the second one: "Our Local Universe", the third one., "The History of Urantia" ("Urantia" being the cosmic name of our planet Earth"), the fourth one: "The Life and Teachings of JESUS"; the American and original edition would have been published in 1955;
Whereas in France, Jacques Weiss, born on April 13, 1894, engineer and alumnus of the Polytechnical School, very soon took an interest in the Urantia Book, in the translation and in the diffusion thereof, and he has been dedicating himself in this manner for very many years, Whereas on April 14-19, 1961, a basic agreement was reached in this respect between Urantia Foundation and Jacques Weiss, the provisions of which will be examined later;
Whereas, in execution of this agreement, a first edition of the complete translation into the French language of the American edition was published in France by Mr. Weiss: volume I in 1961, and volumes II and III in 1962; this edition caused no problem and today it is not a subject matterof this cause;
Whereas on April 21-28, 1967, a rider, whose provisions will be examined later, decided on a second edition which was realized; Volume II in 1969, Volume I 1970, and Volume III in 1971;
Whereas on May 11, 1972, Weiss ordered from the printer a new edition, called "Third Edition" of volume II, the printing of which was completed on October 10, 1972;
Whereas, reproaching Weiss for violation of certain ones of his contractual obligations, Urantia Foundation,after having caused the proceeding with several attachments and seizures, subpoenaed him on November 26, 1973, as well as the printer firm ROMAND and BEUREL substantially to obtain: Certain measures (which will be specified later) relating to the copies of the second edition "possibly being printed in exess of the volume agreed on as well as the third edition; the confiscation of the receipts; the return of the material printing means of all editions; the interdiction of manufacturing and selling the "Glossary" and the "Concordex"; the sentencing of Weiss for infringing the registered trademark "Urantia" and of a figurative registered trademark with the usual measures, the transfer of title of the trademark "Editions Urantia" was requested also; sentencing the defendant to one franc for damages and interest to repair the moral damage and 100,000 francs to repair the material damage, this provisionally while awaiting the results of an accountant's opinion; finally, the publication and temporary enforcement of the judgment;
Whereas, on August 8, 1974, Urantia Foundation caused a second subpoenae to be served on Weiss and the Printshop Romand and Bueurel, as well as to the firm SARL DERVY-LIVRES, charged with the distribution of the work, substantially to obtain: the validation of a new attachment put into operation on July 25, 1974, as well as the confiscation of 100 copies of volume II of the 3rd edition seized at Dervy-Livres and of the first 25 pages of CONCORDEX seized at Romand and Baurel;damages and interest figured for the time being with 125,000 francs for material damages;
Whereas both cases were connected, it is necessary to combine them;
Whereas furthermore, Uraatia Foundation demanded a measure of inquiry, intended for:
l. to determine the number of copies printed of the three volumes of each one of the subsequent editions and the number of the corresponding volumes;
2. to audit Weiss's accounting relating to the edition and sale of these volumes and of the works originating from "Cosmogonie d'Urantia";
3. to check whether the translation made by Weiss contains errors and to prepare a list thereof;
Whereas it also asked Weiss to produce under force the accounting records for 1973 and 1974 as well as the complete list of the changes, additions and corrections made by him to Cosmogonie d'Urantia (Cosmogony of Urantia) on the occasion of the various editions; Whereas, of the three defendants the Corporation Dervy-Livres did not appear, this judgment, likely to be appealed, will be considered as having been handed down with all parties having been heard. Whereas Weiss first of all asked the Court to suspend until a decision has been reached by the American Court which would be forthcoming in a BURTON case, the question of the copyrights and literary title of the Urantia foundations; However, since the conditions of a pending litigation are not met, the Court is obligated to rule in this lawsuit;
Whereas, concluding that his demand was rejected, Weiss invoked various means or arguments which will be examined later. Whereas in turn, the Printshop Romand and Beurel is abiding by this ruling:
I.- ON TILE RIGHTS OF Urantia FOUNDATION IN FRANCE
A) BY VIRTUE OF THE LAW
Whereas Urantia Foundation took the Copyright on the Urantia Book in the U.S,.A. in 1961 and 1962.
Whereas in this case, after having stated that the Foundation's rights of literary title (copyrights) were disputable with respect to the American law, but having waived this in a spirit of conciliation and not raising this issue, Weiss finally maintains that Urantia Foundation not being the author of the Urantia book, it would not enjoy the rights of literary title to this Book, and particularly the exclusive right of exploitation.
Whereas, however, on the one hand, in the agreement signed freely in 1961, Weiss had clearly recognized the rights of Urantia Foundation, "owner, as it was written in this document, of the COPYRIGHT of the Urantia Book in the U.S.A., in France and in the other countries of the world, including the exclusive right of making, publishing and authorizing the making and publication of the translations of the Urantia Book, and owner of all the translations of said Book"; whereas, in his conclusions of September 13, 1975, Weiss suggested that it was true that his good faith had been surprised on this point, but that he no longer says so and finally in no way invokes a lack of consent which would lead to the cancellation of the agreement.
Whereas, on the other hand, it is true that in this case, Urantia Foundation invokes the provisions of the World Agreement on copyright, signed in Geneva on September 6, 1962, especially by the U.S.A. and France, and particularly its article 2-1 in the application of which the work, published for the first time in the U.S.A., enjoys in France the protection of the French Law allowed to works of her nationals published for the first time on her own territory; that in other words in the present lawsuit relating to an American work, of which it is not maintained by the way that it is in the public domain in the U.S.A., Urantia Foundation is justified to claim protection under the French law, that is particularly that of the Act of March 11, 1957, regarding literary and artistic property.
Whereas with respect to this Law, Urantia Foundation, which does not claim to be the author of the Book, but only the depository of the original printing plates of the work, calls itself holder of all the author's rights and in any event of the copyright, appears as the original publisher of the work; whereas this work defined by agreement between the parties as a work revealed by the Supreme Power to a group of human beings who remained anonymous and who entrusted another group, the Foundation, with the publishing, appears in turn as an anonymous work in the meaning of the above cited law whereas therefore, under the terms of the article 11 of said law, the author, who remains unknown, of this anonymous work, is represented in the exercising of his moral and patrimonial rights, precisely by the origmal publisher, that is to say by Urantia Foundation;
B) BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT Whereas it follows from the foregoing that Urantia Foundation has been validly able to conclude with Weiss the agreement of April 14-19, 1961, regarding the terms of translation into the French language, the printing and publication of the Urantia Book; whereas today this basic agreement, still in effect and completed or modified by the 1967 amendment relating to the second edition forms the law of the parties; Whereas, having recalled the principal provisions, the bylaws of the Foundation, the agreement states: that the Foundation is the owner of the copyright of the Urantia Book in the U.S.A., in France and in the other countries of the world; that Weiss, by conviction and outside any search for financial profits, proceeded on his own initiative with the translation of the Book into the French language;
whereas the Foundation wishes to cause the distribution of this translation after it was verified by Weiss himself and by Rodolphe G. GEISLY so as to avoid any change of the English text; that therefore the agreement decides to edit the translation of the Book in three volumes, the initial edition should be 2500 sets of 3 volumes each; that the Foundation, during the lifetime of this agreement - which is not determined, to decide on future editions, by agreements which possibly would have to be reached between it and Weiss and to settle any questions regarding these editions;
That the translator assigns all his rights to his co-contracting party;
That by virtue of the first edition Urantia Foundation had to pay certain funds (today it is not known whether they actually were paid) and that generally Weiss, who, like the Foundation is not seeking any personal gains, has the right to be reimbursed particularly for his expenses and advances;
That the other special provisions of the agreement will be examined below simultaneously with any special grievance.
II.- ABOUT THE CONTRACTUAL GRIEVANCES OF CONTRACTUAL VIOLATIONS
Whereas Urantia Foundation issued to Weiss the authorization to go ahead with a second French edition of the work, by an amendment of April 21-28, 1967, under the terms of which "this second edition would be governed on principle by the Agreement of April 14-19, 1961, but with the reservation of some modifications and/or additions, namely (specifically):
"The printing shall be limited to an "approximate" number of 3,000 sets of 3 volumes each (increased to 4,000 sets by letter of April 8, 1969, to enable Mr. Weiss to recover his printing costs);
"The notes on the bottom of the page shall be preserved as they were corrected recently and the protective page of each volume shall contain a declaration (the terms of which are specified), whereby the translator is only responsible on the basis of these notes which were not part of the English language edition and of the publication of the Book in three volumes."
Whereas, in execution of this rider, Weiss caused the printing of Volume II, printing completed on April 14, 1969, by the LABOUREUR printshop volume I, printing completed on November 28, 1970, by the Romand and Beurel priatshop (and showing the indication "Third Edition", but by error due to its date of coedition of the printing) volume III., printing completed on March 10, 1971, by Romand and Beurel.
Whereas in the first grievance made today to the defendant, Urantia Foundation writes "that it believes"'that the authorized number of 4,000 sets of 3 volumes each was exceeded by Weiss and it therefore requests that Weiss be enjoined from fabricating, exposing and selling those of the three volumes of this second edition which would possibly be in excess; the confiscation of the"excess" copies, as well as the confiscation of the receipts originating from their sale.
Whereas it (the Foundation) first asked the Court to order an expert opinion to determine the printings made and the number of corresponding volumes; However, whereas as a general rule it is up to the plaintiff to produce for the arguments at least a start of proof of its grievance so as to justify its request of search of a more complete proof, particularly by way of an expert opinion;
Whereas in this case Urantia Foundation which nevertheless already proceeded to search for all possible means of proof, particularly by proceeding with six attachments for infringement at the publishers, the printer and distributor, did not submit any start of proof in support of its grievance; that it could not therefore avail itself of the right of its request of expert opinion on this point;
Whereas, therefore the first grievance is not established and the various requested measures must be rejected.
Whereas in the second grievance Urantia Foundation reproaches Weiss to have changed in this second edition the purity of the Urantia Book, both by adding notes on the bottom of the pages and biblical references, and by infidelity of translation; whereas it asks on the one hand, Weiss to supply to it a complete list of the changes and additions he might have made in the original text, and on the other hand, the Court to order an expert opinion to determine whether or not Weiss's translation contains errors, and if so, to preare a list of same.
However, inasmuch as the plaintiff again does not furnish any supporting element for such a request;
Whereas on the contrary, as far as the notes and biblical references are concerned, it appears that they already had all been inserted in the first edition, without any objection from the Foundation; and that moreover, the notes on the bottom of the pages were, as it has been seen above on the occasion of the analysis of the rider of April 1967, and authorized by this rider, on the condition of the insertion of a warning which in fact has been inserted;
Whereas insofar as the alleged infidelities of translation are concerned, aside from the fact that the plaintiff furnishes no inkling of justification, as it had been asked to do and which would have been easy for it, it should be pointed out moreover, that a comparative examination of the text of each volume of the 2nd edition and each volume of the lst edition, the latter having been verified by Weiss and by Rodolphe G. GELSEY, which had been accepted duly by Urantia Foundation, on a first glance shows no difference, therefore it, (plaintiff) could not rightly request an expert opinion on this point.
Whereas this second grievance is not substantiated any further and the requested measures also must be rejected.
B.- REFERRING TO THE THIRD EDITION (VOLUME II)
Whereas discussions were held concerning a possible third French edition, with Weiss expressing in 1971 his intention of going ahead with it, and the Foundation notifying him on April 24, 1972 that it had not yet taken its decision, but that it was likely to discharge him from the responsibility of this third edition; Whereas in spite of this notice, Weiss on May 11, 1972, placed an order for volume II of the 3rd edition with the Printshop of Romand & Beurel, which completed the printing on October 10,1972.
Whereas by letters dated August 25 and October 2, 1972, he told the Foundation that with the Book actually being in the public domain and the agreements being null and void, he no longer had any obligation to it (the Foundation); Whereas in the first grievance Urantia Foundation reproaches Weiss for having ordered volume II of the 3rd edition in violation of the provisions of the agreement, reserving to it the exclusive right of the decision concerning future editions, and against the wish it had expressed to him, namely to wait, probably in view of refusing him the power of proceeding with a new edition;
Whereas Weiss admits that he gave orders to go ahead with this printing, but claims that this new printing was intended to replace 2,000 copies of, volume II of the second edition printed by the LABOUREUR firm and scrapped because it was defective; Whereas Weiss furnishes evidence thereof by various documents put in evidence, while in reality for a question of cost, according to him, he not only had 2,000 replacement copies printed but, and this is litigious, he had 5,500 copies printed at a price of 44,654.85 francs, all taxes included, a figure determined by the documents of the case without need of resorting to the requested expert opinion, that is indeed an unauthorized printing of 3,500 copies;
Whereas in this second grievance Urantia Foundatiun reproaches Weiss for having refused to furnish it with the list of the changes allegedly applied to Volume II of the 3rd edition in relation to the preceding editions; whereas it asks that Weiss be condemned to furnish it to the Foundation and, like for the second edition, an expert opinion about the fidelity of the translation;
However, whereas the plaintiff furnishes no element in support of these requests; whereas Weiss admits that it is true that he had to proceed in the text of the litigious volume with changes, however that these were simple corrections of errors in the printing or of the language which in no way could constitute a change of the sacred text; whereas the list of these changes was reported to the other side during this trial (exhibit 1) and that moreover, the request for an expert opinion has to be rejected because of the reasons expressed before;
Whereas in a third grievance Urantia Foundation reproaches Weiss for having maintained the biblical references in the litigious volume, despite the interdiction expressed in the letter of April 24, 1972 for the future editions; whereas this grievance, against which the defendant does not object at all, appears justified, but only as far as the supplementary 3,500 copies are concerned, as the other 2,000 were intended to replace the copies of the second edition which were put on the scrap pile.
Whereas in a fourth grievance the plaintiff reproaches Weiss for having concealed on the copies,of the litigious volume, under a glued-on strip of paper the indication "Copyright by Urantia Foundation 1962"; whereas this fact was noted by a court bailiff on November 6, 1973, so that this grievance is substantiated; whereas this concealment must be eliminated from the 2,000 copies which moreover are under litigation.
Whereas, definitely, with the approval of the three violations retained, it is necessary to give justice to the requests for interdiction and for confiscations as presented, but only to the extent fixed in the recitals, that specifically the 3,500 illicit copies which have not been sold and which are sequestered at Romand & Beurel (that is precisely 3,499 copies) are not subject to confiscation of receipts;
C) REGARDING THE OTHER CONTRACTUAL VIOLATIONS
Whereas Urantia [Foundation] voices a first grievance against Weiss, that of never having sent to it, despite the obligation inserted in article 2 of the agreement, the two special proofs which were to be used as a basis for other volumes by the offset process, nor the material printing means of the work, that is the special fabrication plates and negative films; whereas Weiss replies that he never had the two special proofs realized; whereas for the remainder it is necessary to do justice to the request for the return of the films and destruction of the plates which may exist
concerning Volume II of the third edition.(eight words stricken)Whereas the plaintiff voices a second grievance against Weiss, that of having omitted, in violation of his obligations defined in articles 5b and 7 at the end of the agreement of 1961 and of articles 4, 5 and 6 of the amendment of 1967, of furnishing to the foundation regularly financial accountings; whereas Weiss, who assures that he allowed advances of funds, and having a deficit of 50,000 francs, answers that he has no real accounting and that he maintains at the Foundation's disposal the accounting documents he annually submits to the fiscal administration; whereas, nevertheless it is fair in the interest of both parties to do justice to the request of an expert opinion from an accountant, formed by the Foundation, in order to prepare the accounting between the parties;
Whereas a third grievance is voiced against Weiss, that of having sold, in violation of article 5 (page 9 bottom) of the agreement, copies of the work in CANADA, a sales territory reserved to the Foundation, by authorizing DIRVY-LIVRES, in charge of the distribution, to fill orders in said country; whereas Weiss admits to this fact which by the way is established in the report of the seizure of July 25, 1974 which notes that these sales would have amounted to about 50 copies since the end of 1973.
Whereas a fourth grievance resides in the editing and selling of a "GLOSSARY" of the Cosmogony of Urantia, a work derived and established against tile Foundation's will, while in the amendment of 1967 it had been decided with Weiss that there would be no glossary; whereas since that time, although the volume of the 1961 already contained an almost identical and unobjected glossary, the request of interdiction of sale of this Glossary only can be granted legally;
Whereas a fifth grievance is voiced against Weiss, that of preparing against the Foundation's wishes a "CONCORDEX" or table of concordance, a work derived, as well as a 4th edition of COSMOGONY; whereas this grievance, to which Weiss only answers that the first seized pages of the Concordex had not yet been placed on the market, appears to be substantiated and that therefore it is necessary to sustain the request of interdiction of composing and selling the Concordex and of confiscation of the composition of the first 25 pages of the Concordex, seized at Romand & Beurel on July 25, 1974.
III.- ABOUT THE GRIEVANCE OF TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT
Whereas Urantia Foundation is the owner of two trademarks:
I.- A figurative trademark consisting of 3 concentrical rings, filed on July 3, 1969, under No 84,221 and recorded under No 798,069, to designate the following products or services: Paper, cardboard and products from these materials, printed materials, Journals, periodicals and books, educational services, teaching and publishing institutions, subscriptions and lending of books, magazines, newspapers, films, particularly in the religious field (classes 16 and 41)
2.- A trademark called "Urantia", filed on July 3, 1969 under No 84,222 and registered under No 798,070, designating or covering the same products or services.
Whereas in the first place, the Foundation voices a grievance against Weiss for having infringed both trademarks by using them without authorization, on the one hand on the allegedly excess copies of the second edition and on the other hand on the copies of Volume II of the unauthorized 3rd edition and likewise prohibited; Whereas, in reality, the production of excess copies of the 2nd edition is not established as it has been indicated above, so that this case of trademark infingement is thus not established;
Whereas, on the other hand, there has very well been an unauthorized use in the title of the work, and the uso of the figure, that is infringement of both trademarks on the 3,500 copies of volume II of the 3rd edition, printed illicitly; whereas therefore there thus is infringement. Whereas in the second place, the Foundation voices a grievance against Weiss for having filed a trademark called "EDITIONS Urantia" subsequent to its (the Foundation's) own filings, namely on July 11, 1972, under No 135,252, a trademark registered under No 859,147 to designate the distribution of books (class 41);
Whereas it initially requested the eradication of this infringing trademark, then alternately the free assignment of title of this trademark in its (Foundation's) exclusive favor; whereas the defendant did not object at all and whereas the trademark "Editions Urantia" clearly appears as infringing the older trademark "Urantia" that the eradication of the trademark thus must be sustained as a legal result of the infringement being pronounced, but not so the transfer of title of this trademark, as this is not provided under the law.
IV. - ABOUT THE DAMAGES
Whereas Urantia Foundation asks for one franc in reparation for its moral damage and with this damage having been established, the demand.is justified.
Whereas it also asks, for reparation of its material damage the sum of 125,000 francs provisionally while awaiting the results of an expert opinion as requested; whereas it essentially cites personal expenses incurred by it, and whereas, considering it all, the Court has the elements to evaluate this type of damage, all causes considered, figuring it with 5,000 francs.
V.- ABOUT TILE OTHER REQUESTS
Whereas insofar as the Printshop ROMAND & BEUREL and the distributor DERVY-LIVRES are concerned no fault of imprudence is voiced against them, nor alleged, and thus no sentencing even to expenses must be pronounced against them.
Whereas moreover, the reparations already allowed the plaintiff appear to be sufficient, there appears to be no reason to add the additional requested reparation constituted by publication of the decision.
Whereas the temporary execution as requested appears necessary, but only insofar as the confiscations and destruction and interdictions are concerned, also suppression of concealment of the copyright and the expert opinion.
Whereas, finally, on the expenses, due to the very special nature of this case, where a Foundation on the one hand obligates itself to protect and promote a Book it considers sacred, but where, on the other hand, a man has been connected likewise for many years with zeal and self-sacrifice, to distributing this book, equity demands it, moreover, the plaintiff yielding in this case on several important facets of complaints, that the costs be split between them in half.
BY VIRTUE OF THESE MOTIVES THE COURT ruling by a judgment considered having reached with all parties present and consoliditing the cases entered under No 20,680 of 1974 and 14,590 of 1974 overrules the request for continuance on a ruling;
It declares the Association under US Law, URANIA FOUNDATION as admissible in its action which is partly substantiated;
It notes the infringement committed by Jacques Weiss against the rights of Urantia FOUNDAT10N on the Urantia BOOK by the illicit production of 3,500 copies of volume II of the third edition of "COSMOGONY of Urantia", by maintaining in 3,500 copies of said volume the biblical references and by concealing on the copies of said volume the legend of "COPYRIGHT" by Urantia Foundation 1962";
Consequently, it declares valid the seizures and sequestrations carried out on October 31, 1973, on 3,400 copies of Volume II of the third edition appertaining to Jacques Weiss and sequestered at Romand & Beurel and on 19 special plates -- on November 10, 1973 on the three boxes of films -- and on July 25, 1974, on 25 pages of CONCORDEX.
It pronounces the confiscation of these objects and their return to Urantia Foundation -- the special plates, however, must be destroyed at the expense of J. Weiss; it orders the repossession (?) and return to Urantia [Foundation] of three films and plates relating to all the other editions.
It gives replevin [sic] to the other seizures carried out.
It enjoins Jacques Weiss from manufacturing, placing on sale, displaying and selling volumes I and III of the third edition not yet printed and of any other edition, this except with the express authorization from Urantia Foundation.
It enjoins Jacques Weiss from composing, manufacturing, displaying, placing on sale and selling the GLOSSARY and the CONCORDEX, except by special express authorization from Urantia Foundation. It rules that on the 2,000 copies of Volume II of the 3rd edition which was produced unlawfully, the paper strip concealing the COPYRIGHT mention must be removed and this for the copies in Jacques Weiss's possession, violations will be fined with ten (10) francs, as they possibly will be discovered following the serving of this judgment.
It rules that for an unlawful use of the trademarks on 3,500 copies of Volume II of the third edition, Jacques Weiss infringed on the one hand the figurative trademark filed by Urantia Foundation on July 3, 1969 and recorded under No 798,069, and on the other hand the trademark called "UIUNTIA" filed by it on that same date and entered under No 798,070.
Consequently it orders Jacques Weiss to cease and desist from any unlawful use of the two trademarks, violations possibly noted effective with the serving of this judgment will be subject to a comminatory fine of one hundred (100) francs.
It finds that the trademark "EDITIONS Urantia" filed by Jacques Weiss on July 11, 1972, under No 135,252 and recorded under 140 859,147 infringes the trademark "Urantia" filed by Urantia Foundation.
It therefore orders the eradication of the trademark "EDITIONS Urantia" from the National Trademark Register. It further says that if Jacques Weiss fails to furnish evidence of this eradication within two months following notice served of this judgment, Urantia Foundation may so proceed by simple production of a transcript of this judgment.
It condemns Jacques Weiss to pay to Urantia Foundation the sum of ONE franc (1 franc) as reparation for its moral damage.
It condemns him to pay to the Foundation the sum of five thousand francs (5,000 francs) plus legal interest as reparation for its material damage, all causes consolidated.
The Court orders an accounting opinion and appoints as expert Mr. Albert GREVOUL, residing at 24bis, Avenue Theophile Gautier, Paris 16 (288-63-78) with the order of preparating the accounts relating to the printings and sales of the work, the Glossary and the Concordex with Jacques Weiss having to produce particularly for the Expert the accounting reports of 1973 and 1974. More generally to prepare the accounts between the parties. It rules that the Expert must hear the parties as to their comments and explanations, obtain all information, consult all useful documents; he shall, if necessary, make all other comments useful for the understanding of the lawsuit, and if applicable he shall bring about a reconciliation of the parties.
It rules that the Expert shall go to work and complete his assignment according to the provisions of the decree of December 17, 1973, and if the parties fail to reach an agreement, he shall submit a report to the Office of the Clerk of the Court, Control of Expert Opinions, not later than four months from the date of his start of preparations. It determines with two thousand francs the amount to be paid as compensation for the Expert, said funds having to be deposited with the office of the Clerk of the Court (Suite 303) by Urantia Foundation, prior to December 31, 1975.
It declares inapplicable or poorly substantial all other claims by Urantia Foundation, particularly those related to the second edition and overrules same. It orders the provisional execution of the judgment, but only as far as the confiscations, returns and destruction and interdictions, the elimination of the concealment of the COPYRIGHT and the expert opinion are concerned. It renders a summary judgment on the expenses, ruling that they be divided 50-50 between Urantia Foundation and Jacques Weiss.
It allows costs in favor of Attorney Alain LE TARNEC and Attorney Paul VILLARD, attorneys-at-law.
So ruled and judged on November 13, 1975
CAYREL GRONIER
Clerk of the Court Assistant Chief Justice