One motion made in Oklahoma City suggested more communication between the Central Office (CO) and the fellowship. The sobriety issue is currently the top news in SA. Hundreds of SA members have received letters from New York City on the sobriety issue and the role of the Central Office in relation to NY Tri-State Intergroup. This has caused considerable confusion and misunderstanding. The following is an outline of what has been transpiring with the copyright, trademarks, and Tradition Three sobriety issues in New York City.
Every letter and action summarized below (except Roy’s 12 September letter) was taken after full consultation with and concurrence of the CO Advisory Committee. (An outline summary of the history and service of the Advisory Committee is included in this mailing.)
8 July 1990: CO letter to Tri-State advising that their recent publication Suggested Meeting Format changed SA Steps, Traditions, and literature without fellowship approval. “In the spirit of unity and loving fellowship, we ask that Tri-State Intergroup Association New York, New Jersey and Connecticut and ‘New York SA’ change their principles, literature, and practices to be in harmony with SA’s.”
22 August 1990: Tri-State returns the 8 July CO letter, stating that it was inappropriate for Roy K. or the Advisory Committee to make such a request.
12 September 1990: Roy K. personal letter to officers of Tri-State, a second attempt. A personal suggestion that Tri-State change their literature and seek proper reprint permission. There was no response to this letter.
22 October 1990: CO to Tri-State. Advised that AA’s attorney for copyright and trademark infringements had been consulted, that Tri-State was in violation of several federal laws, and that the Suggested Meeting Format did not represent SA, asking Tri-State again (a third time) to withdraw its publication and cease illegal use of SA marks. Declared the Tri-State entity that was responsible for the publication to be non-SA, requesting compliance with requests determined by legal counsel. (AA’s legal counsel for these matters has since become SA’s.)
The legal summary included the following: Tri-State’s representation that its views and activities are those of SA is false, misleading and deceptive to the public. Tri-State’s acts constitute trademark and service mark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1114(1) and 1125(a). Tri-State’s other express and implied representations that they are Sexaholics Anonymous constitute unfair competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. Tri-State’s mutilation of SA’s principles and other written works also violates the Lanham Act. Tri-State’s use of copyrighted materials without permission constitutes copyright infringement under Title 17 of the U.S. Code. These activities also violate various state laws.
11 November 1990: David B. to hundreds of names taken from SA convention lists. The letter took the Central Office, the Advisory Committee, and Roy K. severely to task and outlined the history of how they in New York City voted to change the sobriety definition there. David’s letter put the following question to the fellowship: “Is our program in New York something other than SA? We don’t know. We rely on the group conscience of SA to help us come to terms with who we are and what we should do next.”
3 December 1990: Tri-State submits revised and reprinted Suggested Meeting Format, asking permission to reprint. (The publication was reprinted without permission.)
12 December 1990: Following advice of legal counsel and that of the Advisory Committee, Roy K. writes to all SA groups, inviting them to respond to the sobriety survey so the sense of the fellowship on interpretation of the sobriety statement can be determined. (The IGC was incomplete and inoperative at the time.)
12 December 1990: Roy writes to David B. in NYC asking if he is willing to make copies of all responses to his November 11 letter to the fellowship available to the SA fellowship. David’s 21 December response repudiates this request.
18 January 1991: CO to Tri-State, requesting copies of other Tri-State literature “that have been or will be made available to members or inquirers.” There was no response to this letter.
22 February 1991: Results of the 12 December sobriety survey are in. Of the 170 groups responding to the survey, 128 (75.3%) affirm the statement, 32 (18.8%) do not affirm, and 10 (5.9%) chose not to respond.
25 February 1991: CO to Tri-State. Based on legal counsel’s advice, permission to use SA marks or reprint literature is denied; this is because of Tri-State’s continuing militant stand against SA principles. Advisory Committee and Roy K., following legal counsel, suggest that they not call themselves SA. The letter welcomes “all in the NY Tri-State area and elsewhere who are in accord with SA’s newly revalidated Tradition Three to remain in SA. We will do all we can to cooperate in any transitional phase that may follow both in Tri-State and in the rest of the fellowship worldwide.”
[Copies of full correspondence available on request.—Ed.]
