[Imc-web] Re: [Imc-staff] New York Times Syndicate--trademark infringement

[Gayden Wren/CORPHQ/NYTIMES]

Dear Ms. Edwards--

      Your point is not without merit, of course.  The language in both my
initial letter (sent back in February) and in my second letter (sent this
morning) is dictated by the Times Company's legal department, but it's
obviously true that a handful of remaining citations of Mr. Ivany as a
syndicated writer is less damaging to the Times than the 200-plus that were
formerly posted, many of which identify him as a writer specifically for
the Syndicate.
      At the same time, it should be obvious that the practice which Mr.
Ivany was conducting under the Syndicate's name (and continues to conduct
under a more generic falsehood) is harmful to the Syndicate's interests and
those of our parent company.
      If somebody in Urbana were calling local businesses asking for
donations of materials on behalf of the IMC and identifying himself as an
IMC employee, you'd doubtless want him to stop.  And if he stopped
identifying himself as such but continued to visit those stores saying "Do
you have anything for us this week?," you'd probably still feel that you
were being unfairly served.
      If, in particular, he'd been promising the businesses that they'd be
mentioned in the printed programs for IMC events, you'd probably resent it.
Not only would such a promise defraud the businesses out of their
materials, but the fact that they weren't mentioned in the IMC programs
would foster ill will toward the IMC itself for no fault of its own--for
its failing to live up to promises it didn't even know were being made.
      That's our position with Mr. Ivany.  This doesn't sound like
censorship to me, since we are asking only that something which is
demonstrably untrue and at least modestly injurious to us be removed; the
Times Company's longstanding opposition to censorship of any kind is in
fact a matter of public record.  It may be bullying, in the sense that our
company is much larger than Mr. Ivany and has much greater resources, but
if so it is entirely due to a fraud initiated by Mr. Ivany.
      Nor do we have, as Mr. Lehman suggests, a vendetta against Mr. Ivany.
We have no problem with citations from his reviews attributed to him or to
"John Shelton Ivany's Top 21," because such citations are accurate.
      In short, your suggestion that I post a notice on this subject is a
good one--I've done so on several similar sites in the past, and will do so
here as soon as I finish with this note.  But I don't think it addresses
the central problem, which is the presence in the archive file (admittedly
an obscure one, but one which comes up on all major search engines when Mr.
Ivany's name is entered) of a claim which is a) demonstrably untrue; b)
based on material submitted from a source which has since retracted it; and
c) at least potentially injurious not only to the Times but also to artists
and record labels who may accept it at face value and be defrauded as a
result.
      As I've said repeatedly, we don't hold the IMC in any way responsible
for this affair.  But we do ask for your help in remedying it.

                                          Very truly yours,

                                          Gayden Wren