BKWSU Trademark Claim Shuts Down Independent BK Websites

The Brahma Kumaris UK employed an expensive Intellectual Property in Australia, to shut down a group of 11 non-commercial, independent, Brahma Kumaris related websites.

The disputed domain names includedl babamurli.org, bkarticles.blog, bkforum.org, bkgoogle.com, bkgsu.com, bkofficial.com, bksustenance.com, bksustenance.org, brahma-kumaris.com, brahmakumarisofficial.com, and brahmakumariz.org, all of which were transferred back to the BKWSU.

Interestingly, it extended the BKWSU (UK)'s claim to involve trademark rights on both of the terms; BK and Murli. I remember some of the websites, they were one of the first BK websites to openly publish the BKs' "Murli" teachings. The BK followers being portrayed as "cybersquatters".

The World Intellectual Property Organization panel ordered the transfer to the Brahma Kumaris of domains described as "filled with content scraped from Brahma Kumaris websites", successful on the three cumulative requirements for each of the disputed domain names, namely:

(1) that the domain name in question is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark to which the complainant has rights;
(2) that the holder of the disputed domain name has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and
(3) that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.

Which in the case of the latter, they weren't.

Unfortunately, the independent group of BKs developing the sites did not contest the claim.

Had they done so, they could have raised issues related to the ownership of the BK Knowledge, the BKs' own cultural appropriation of classic Hindu terms that the adjudicator would know nothing about.

The immediate ramifications underline that BK followers have absolutely no rights or sense of share ownership within the BK system, and reinforces the monopolistic control of the BKWSU over what are increasingly being seen as 'their' intellectual property (including the right to re-write and modify it to their will without any transparency or accountability to ordinary BKs).

The decision can be accessed here:

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (UK) v. Shiv Baba Service, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University, Shiv Baba Service, Brahma Kumaris Spiritual University, Shiv Baba Service Initiative, Perfect Privacy, LLC / Shiv Baba Service, Shiv Baba Service Initiative, Anand Samrat, Brahma Kumaris, Anand Samrat, Shiv Baba Service, BK Godly Spiritual University, and Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2021-2832.

4. Factual Background

In the absence of a Response the Panel accepts the following evidence as filed by the Complainant as being factually correct. The Complainant, Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (UK) (referred to as “BKWSU-UK” in this decision) is a registered charity and is the United Kingdom branch of an organisation called the Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (referred to as “BKWSU-India” in this decision), headquartered in Mt. Abu, Rajasthan, India. Collectively the Complainant and BKWSU-India are referred to in this decision as “BKWSU”. For more than eight decades, BKWSU-India has used the name Brahma Kumaris and in abbreviated form the designation BK in connection with its provision of the teaching of meditation and what it describes as “facilitating spiritual enlightenment”. BKWSU-India was founded in 1937 in Hyderabad, India, and has since then grown into an international network of educators with selected local affiliates who deliver products and information to their intended recipients in accordance with the organisation’s purpose of teaching and facilitating spiritual enlightenment. BKWSU-India now has 8,500 branches in 110 countries with more than 1 million students and claims to be the world’s largest spiritual organization run by women. The Complainant is the UK branch of BKWSU-India and is a registered charity in the UK that operates, in effect, as a wholly owned subsidiary of BKWSU-India.

BKWSU owns a number of registered trademarks for the word Brahama Kumaris – for example Indian trademark number 1154869 with a priority date of December 2, 2002. These are referred to as the BRAHAMA Kumaris trademark in this decision.

Historically, persons interested in the teaching BKWSU provided placed orders for delivery of books, information, training, and gifts throughout the world by mail order or in person at BKWSU premises. In 2001, BKWSU began offering its information, products, and services online. People looking for BKWSU have been able to purchase books from BKWSU authorized outlets listed through several BKWSU domains, including <brahmakumaris.org> (operated by the Complainant) and <brahmakumaris.com> (operated by BKWSU).

The website owners had posted a meessage;

“BKGSU website Notice from Admin

This is to notify all the users of our main website: http://www.brahma-kumaris.com aka http://www.bkgsu.com that this website is a non-official website of the Prajapita Brahma Kumaris Godly Spiritual University (BKIVV), ran by the Shiv Baba Services team. This website is aimed to give daily sustenance to Baba’s children (via our ‘Online Services’, ‘Resources’ sections) and give accurate information about the organisation and its purpose to the seekers (via our ABOUT and WISDOM section)

Declaration from Site creator

We do not claim the website http://www.brahma-kumaris.com or http://www.bkgsu.com to be an ‘official’ website from BK organisation. Instead, our purpose is to spread God’s message by all means possible, while also presenting the organisation related information to the public and thereby, glorifying the name of BK organisation. It is with this elevated purpose that we the team of “Shiv Baba Service Initiative” have dedicated our day and night in creating and managing the website, thereby making the website more and more useful for the users. By May 2021, this was the MOST USED BK website of all.

The money required to run this website (and all its apps and internal services) is also paid by website’s creator (Anand Samrat).

Apart from the BKGSU main site, the “Shiv Baba Service team” is behind creating and running many other websites, mobile apps, YouTube channel and SoundCloud channel, and more... A full list of services can be found on this page:
https://www.bkgoogle.com/services-done

Main Purpose of this Notice

We need your blessings so that we can overcome the hurdles coming on the path of one of Shiv Baba’s most important internet services. So we request you to send your thoughts and blessings.

Letter Written by:
A. Samrat,
Manager, The Shiv Baba Services Initiative”

The BKs claimed that “Anand Samrat” is an alias of “Kevin Patel”.

The BKWSU said that it has registered trademark rights in respect of the words BRAHAMA Kumaris and unregistered common law trademark rights in respect of the acronym BK and the term Murli.

The BKWSU has at least one pending trademark application for the term “Murli”.

So who can call themselves a BK any more?

We can see the danger in not challenging such appropriation of Godly knowledge by the current BKWSU leadership, and evidence of their continued dishonesty, and revision of Shiva's teachings in the decision, allowing for expedient misunderstandings. My emphasis ...

The Complainant has placed in evidence BKWSU’s constitution which contains a section that reads as follows:

“(v) ‘Murlis’ means Godly discourses or versions disseminated by the Supreme God Father Shiva, through, His corporeal medium Prajapita Brahma till 18” January 1969, called Sakar Murlis and now being disseminated from 21” January 1969 onwards, through the Official Trans-Messenger Sister, called Avyakt Murlis.

These Murlis are now being also revised for realization courses”.

The Panel therefore understands the Complainant’s case to be that the word “Murli” designates a written or recorded story produced by the BKWSU organisation or its members and likely disseminated in some form of official manner.

One such BKWSU trademark for its "products and services" is, here, in Australia, applied for by the same Intellectual Property lawyer on 24 Jun 2021 and given by 06 Feb 2023, suggesting that Charlie Hogg is involved but also our friend Sanjay Tulsidas.

Clearly it is NOT what Murli means within BKism.

There are, of course, a huge number of Murli trademarks in India, so it would appear they went shopping for a jurisdiction they could register it in.

Number 2189250
Words: Murli
Status ● Registered:
Registered/protected Priority date 24 Jun 2021 (Filing) Class 41 Kind Word

Murli

Goods & Services


Class 41: Yoga and meditation educational services by way of lectures, courses and workshops, for personal development of general and spiritual knowledge; Yoga and meditation training; providing information regarding Yoga and meditation education and training; publication of all the aforesaid online via the Internet or other computer networks or mobile or wireless networks.

Girish Wadhwani, as Trustee of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University(UK), charity no 269971
Sanjay Tulsidas, as Trustee of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (UK), charity no 269971
Mahesh Patel, as Trustee of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (UK), charity no 269971
Ratan Thadani, as Trustee of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (UK), charity no 269971
Govind Vaswani, as Trustee of Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University (UK), charity no 269971

The problem with trademark applications is that they are only really designed for large corporations, with lots of money, who are able to not just register words but keep watch for new registrations, meaning that many dishonest, unethical "stealth" registrations, like this one, can be made.

The message now on the captured websites, looks strangely familiar in colour and design.

Strangely, no where in the proceedings was the case the BKs used to try and shut this website down mentioned, even through surely it was a precedent.

Surely there are many people in India or of Indian extraction who are named Brahma Kumari and Brahma Kumar?

And what about other Hindu sects that use these terms and may have their own interpretations of their use?

I have met a number of people named Murli in my travels as well.

Surely there are many people in India or of Indian extraction who are named Brahma Kumari and Brahma Kumar? And what about other Hindu sects ...

Indeed, there are.

And, indeed, in India, words like Shiva, Murli and Baba all have MANY trademarks taken out already.

Which is why, I presume they went trademark shopping overseas to somewhere like Australia that doesn't have a Hindu tradition.

I mean ... apart from Charlie bankrolling it, may be ... why would the BKWSU (UK), register an Australian trademark, on the behalf of BKWSU (India), to deal with an rogue independent BK in the UK?

For the sake of domain disputes, all that is required is some trademark somewhere to establish prior use. Many nations uses a "first come, first serve" basis for registration.

For me, it just underlines two things,

a) the BKs' inherent deviousness, and tendency to bully,
b) their autocratic, monopolistic control over an increasing corporatised business.

I think this independent BK was first, after us and the PBKs, to publish copies of the Murlis openly in public. At the time that the BKs had it all locked up with private online access only & password security so no one could copy and distribute them. It went further so that the only way you could access them was by going to a centre to read them there.

What's interesting is how they make clear their right to revise them as they wish.

Sometimes it simply better to leave such fools to play inside their little fantasy world than trying to reason with them.

Given that migrants from India make up one of the largest growing group of migrants to Australia, if not the largest, it may become an issue here, especially as those who get lengthy and permanent visas are usually very highly skilled individuals including business people.

All the same, it's like one sect trademarking the term Christian or Hindu, & prohibiting anyone else from using it.

True but the fact they are doing it in Australia where the BK presence is very small relative to other countries shows that for all their effort, they are not going to achieve much. The main game is in India.

What they will achieve is a global reach as relating to domain names though. Having one trademark anywhere is enough to work the system in their favour.

Just out of interest, how many BKs do you think that they are there in Australia now? I wonder if they paid for the legal out of donations?

Apart from their controlling nature, what it underlines for me is how insincere & dishonest they are, as usual (which I say on the basis of reading the entire case). Primarily lying by omission, exploiting the legal system to do so, crushing an independent individuals, conceiving of "the family" as a business not as a religion.

It's shame the respondent did not stand their ground over it being a religion rather than a brand. Like someone trademarking "Christian" or "Buddhist". It raises questions over,

a) who owns the 'intellectual property', and
b) what rights any individual lending themselves to the religion has (clearly none).

All very good points. I don't have an idea of how many BKs there are in Australia.

The line defining who is and is not a BK is far more blurred than it's ever been.

If we based it on who was considered a pukka BK back in the day, say, in the 1980s, rather than a "co-operative soul" or "serviceable soul", ie following all the rules (celibacy, diet, routines, regular donations, accepting the actual truths of the Gyan as factual) - I'd say that even many of the long term BKs from back then who still go along occasionally to centres and programs would now fall outside the definition; even if they thought of themselves as BKs.

Heterodoxy is acceptable as long as you don't diss the BKs and help with the PR and add to the numbers.

There is a growing Indian BK community here who, from what I can tell, now make up a numerical majority, similar to the UK. But it's not possible for me to say how many are pukka in the way pukka was considered back then.

Everyone's given up competing for a position among the top 108, huh?

May be the 108 will just consist of whoever's left at the end.

Funnily enough, I realised that having lawyers or advocates lies them, & create plausible sounding narratives for non-bas, is something they've been doing since the very beginning and the big Om Mandli case.