Mothers Against Illegal Aliens mad with MADD

Washington Times:

Michelle Dallacroce was hopping mad when she received a letter from Mothers Against Drunk Driving demanding she change the name of her organization, Mothers Against Illegal Aliens.

"I couldn't believe it," Mrs. Dallacroce said. "I don't know who would be confused by this. We don't even have the same acronym."

Mrs. Dallacroce, president of the Phoenix-based advocacy group, received a certified letter Oct. 10 stating that MADD owns the rights to the name "Mothers Against" and giving her 10 days to stop using it.

"While we do not oppose the name of your organization as a whole, we cannot permit the term 'Mothers Against' to be used in such a manner since it creates a likelihood of confusion to the public as to any affiliation with Mothers Against Drunk Driving," the letter stated. "MADD cannot be associated with your organization and the use of 'Mothers Against' gives a strong implication of a relationship with MADD."

Mrs. Dallacroce fired back with a terse reply: "No!"

An official from MADD could not be reached for comment.

There are dozens, if not hundreds, of organizations that use the name "Mothers Against," including Mothers Against War, Mothers Against Cancer, Mothers Against Guns and Mothers Against Medical Error.

Why MADD would single out MAIA isn't clear, although Mrs. Dallacroce has her own theory. She contends that MADD fears running afoul of immigration advocacy groups, and at least one MADD official agrees with her.

...

The MADD "trademark" may have been waived by the groups failure to object to the other uses of "Mothers Against." The objection, to the extent it is valid can probably be dealt with by using an asterisk at the end of MAIA* with a small note below disavowing any connection with MADD. However, if they choose to change the name of their organization I have a suggestion I think is even better than the one they have now--Citizens Against Illegal Immigration. It makes their case even stronger against their main concern and I don't think the CIA will object to the CAIA. The discovery process alone would probably discourage them.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more