There are those who say that the SN collective is biased towards OIF. That is not the case. We actually consider all the pretenders to power have different flaws, and try to give all sides a place within the SN forum.
For example and for information, Premgeet’s missive below, which while we think it has errors, has a right to be seen.
From:
Yogesh Thakkar (Sw. Premgeet)
Anand Park, flat no. 11, third floor,
368, Lane No. 5, Koregaon Park, Pune 411001
Mobile +919049455099 & +917020307721
Email: sosyogesh@gmail.com, url: www.oshowork.org
Premgeet with a friend
Fact File: OSHO Ashram, Pune, India
Osho Formally known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Oct. 2017
Chronological events pertaining to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) of Osho:
|
1. |
June 1961 |
Jeevan Jagriti Kendra (JJK) Founder/ advisor Acharya Rajneesh then known as Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and Osho |
Under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act 1950 |
|
2. |
1974 |
Jeevan Jagriti Kendra renamed as Rajneesh Foundation. A sole owner of Osho headquarters and owner of Copyrights and immovable properties at Pune, Maharashtra. |
Office : |
|
3. |
28 July 1978 |
By this Declaration Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh assigned/ transferred “Ownership” all his |
We have no dispute on this Declaration as it is an admitted document in the |
1
|
work such as books, audios, videos etc in favor of Rajneesh Foundation. |
Office of the Copyrights in America and Spain. |
||
|
4. |
1st April 1981 |
Through only One Trustee on behalf of Rajneesh Foundation, illegally transfers Copyrights to USA |
The reasons for which its illegal, null and void is briefly noted in the forth coming clauses hereunder |
|
5. |
4.11.1984 |
From USA the said Copyrights were transferred to a Swiss Foundation Osho Foundation International registered in Zurich, Switzerland |
Registered under the Swiss laws. |
|
6. |
1991 |
Osho Foundation International was registered in Mumbai. The Trust registered in the same name as in Zurich and Mumbai are deemed confusing, deliberately done so to successfully create an identity crisis. e.g. Mr. Mukesh Sarda is a common member / trustee in OIF Mumbai and Zurich. |
This OIF Mumbai Trust is registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act now known as Maharashtra Public Trust Act. |
|
7. |
In India, Various Private Limited Companies registered by Trustees wherein properties and funds of the trusts till date and illegally transferred. |
List Available. |
2
|
8. |
In US, UK, Ireland, Hong Kong etc. various private limited companies were registered wherein income of the Trusts such as Copyrights, Trademarks, Osho’s digital work online sale is illegally transferred by trustees. |
List Available. |
|
|
9. |
Oct. 2011 – January 2012 |
Applications u/s 41 E was filed before the Charity Commissioner Mumbai Region seeking investigations in the Trust and to secure properties and funds of the trust. Application bearing No. 4 /2012 and 5/2012 From January 2012 Till date, In spite of time baring orders issued by Bombay High Court two times, the joint Charity Commissioner has not initiated hearing on Interim Relief seeking protection of the funds and properties of the Trust! |
Till December 2016 the Opponents Mr. Michael Byrne and John Andrews did not appeared in the Charity Commissioner Office! Recently they had appeared saying that they had no knowledge of this case – a simple misleading and time wasting tactics! However, the Opponents have filed various Misc. Applications and Petition in Bombay High Court and Supreme Court in New Delhi, whereby they have been defeated. Thus making the Applications filed before Charity Commissioner being validated by this Orders. Orders of the Bombay High Court and Supreme Court available. |
3
|
10. |
June 2013 |
When the trustees and administrators are exposed of such illegal transfers, then in June 2013 the administrators Forged Osho’s Will. This Will was produced in Europe in a hearing of Osho’s Trademark case. The private Forensic investigation reports were carried out at four places in New Delhi, Aurangabad (Maharashtra), Italy and Germany. As per the findings of document experts it is evident that the signature of Osho on the Will is Forged. |
Notably, (i) the Witnesses are the beneficiaries of the Forged Will (ii) who are also holding dual positions as the trustees and directors wherein (iii) the income of royalties worth millions of $ per annum is illegally transferred to their private companies instead of keeping it for the foundations. |
|
11. |
18.11.2013 |
A Police Complaint filed by Yogesh Thakkar before Koregaon park Police Station at Pune seeking investigations in the matter of Forged Will. |
This complaint also includes funds and properties illegally transferred by the trustees and administrators from the Trusts to their private companies. |
|
12. |
8th Dec. 2013 |
An FIR bearing No,149/2013 we registered by the Pune Police under section 465, 467, 471, 120 (b) of IPC |
However, no investigations were carried out by the police department for illegal transfer of fund and properties till date. |
|
13. |
August |
A Criminal Writ Petition bearing No, 2150/2016 is filed by Yogesh |
4
|
2016 |
Thakkar in Bombay High Court seeking transfer of investigation to CBI. |
||
|
14. |
Sept. 2013 |
A Civil Suit bearing no. 1683/2013 filed in the Senior Judge Civil Court in Pune for the Declaration of the Will of Osho as Null and Void. |
Only Indian Trustees have appeared in this case till date. However, Michael Byrne, John Andrews and Philip Talkies have not yet appeared before the court. This case is still pending and well attained by the plaintiffs Yogesh Thakkar and Kishor Raval (Sw. Anadi) |
|
15. |
August 2016 |
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed various Orders making ED (Enforcement Department) and Foreign Exchange Department party in this proceedings. |
Orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay attached herewith. |
|
16. |
Sept. 2017 |
The Hon’ble Bombay High Court passed various Orders making CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) a party in this proceedings. |
On the next date the CBI will be further instructed by High Court. |
Notes:
As per the Clasue no. 3 stated above, a Declaration was made on 20th July 1978, by Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, and the ownership right of IPR. The cop of the Declaration dated 20th July 1978, was given to Rajneesh Foundation presently known as Neo Sannyas Foundation. Rajneesh Foundation earlier was known as Jeevan Jagruti Kendra and one Ma Yoglaxmi, was the Managing
5
Trustee (Secretary), of the said Trust. We state that there is no dispute to this Declaration executed by Osho on 20.07.1978.
We say that;
the said Assignment transferring IPR of Osho on 1st April 1981, executed by (only) One trustee of Rajneesh Foundation is illegal on the following Four counts:
- At the time of executing the said Assignment of Copyrights, Rajneesh Foundation (now Neo Sannyas Foundation) has not taken Pre Requisite Permission of the Foreign Exchange Department, Reserve Bank of India. On this count alone the said General Assignment of Copyrights dated 1st April 1981 would be quashed and set aside.
- At the time of executing the said General Assignment of Copyright only One trustee Mr. Yogendra Manu had executed the same, whereas, the remaining other Eight trustees on board of the Trust has neither signed the said General Assignment of Copyright nor, have passed any resolution in the meeting of the Trust authorizing Mr. Yogendra Manu aka Manikant Ratansi Khona to execute the same on behalf of the Trust.Whereas, as per the Public Trust Act, any Assignment pertaining to the valuable properties of the Trust if it is not consented by all the members/ trustees then, it stands null and void.
- As per the said Declaration dated 28th July 1978 executed by OSHO, His work was in the ownership of a Public Charitable Trust namely Rajneesh Foundation. Hence all the trustees were obliged to take prior permission of Hon’ble Charity Commissioner to assign the valuable articles and properties of the trust, which was not taken by the trustees. Hence, the said assignment is null and void.
- The said Assignment of Copy Rights does not carry any value/ consideration payable by the assignee hence the assignment is an ill-fated void document.
• The opinion of M/S Jayantilal Thakkar & Associates, Chartered Accountants, dated 12.11.2012, on the FERA / FEMA angle, it was mandatory for the trustees to take prior consent of Foreign Exchange Department, Reserve
6
Bank Of India, Mumbai to assign the said IPR outside India. As the Trustee who entered into the said Assignment has not taken necessary consent of Foreign Exchange Department the said Assignment is illegal null and void. The expert’s opinion further suggests that there is no limitation of period Under FERA/ FEMA as, this violations are punishable with monetary penalty as well as prosecution. • The Opinion of Mohinder Puri & Co. dated 19.07.2001 is also of the similar opinion.
Further to be informed that:
In the eventuality when the said General Assignment of Copyright is declared null and void then it would effect on mainly THREE points:
- The Osho Trademarks and copyrights will fall back to its source that is, Neo Sannays Foundation (Formally known as Rajneesh Foundation) under the jurisdiction of Charity Commissioner, Mumbai.
- As the said Neo Sannays Foundation is under a serious breach of Trust and various Litigations, it would be under the control of Charity Commissioner, Mumbai.
- Effectively, by the Indian Court during the trails when realizing the facts of the above explained illegal transfer the rights of OIF Zurich would be caused illegal and freed from its control. This would free Europe and other parts of the World to use “Osho” in its true sense.Off course it’s important to note that in any country, wherever the Copyrights would stay, it will be for the benefits of all mankind with a Charter that of; Let Osho spread like a wild gesticulates around the world!In order to make this happen we all – Osho Friends and Sannyasins have to work with Love and Responsibility. Also we need to share information and available data with each other. Then only, we will be overcome the dangers looming over Osho’s work.
7
Is there not a single Osho talk which gives some hints to resolve the in-house crisis?
MOD:
POST EDITED.
Osho legacy is almost like Syria. One man´s wish to obsessively control that which is a common legacy.
If a campus of 24 acres whose market worth is around a billion dollars cannot be managed with the co-operation of lifelong native disciples and lifelong western disciples spread around the world then it simply means meditation medicine was used as a mouth-freshener before or after sex!
This is a simple fact, and wonder is those who have never been to Pune blame me for my “ideas”.
This blog is a micro-sannyas-test-tube and, sorry to say, blessed may not be, but intelligent and humane are those who have nothing to do with 20th century semi-spiritual literature.
This irony I can write again and again, there is Sheela influence, no Trump or Modi influence, in the downfall of Neo-Sannyas collective at its headquarters.
P.S:
Yogesh Thakkar (Sw. Premgeet) is a front face, whereas the string and sterling are with silent majority.
Mark Zuckerberg was at Pune Resort with Amrito right before he stole SPTN and gave Kalanick Uber?
I wrote to SPTN* and pitched it to Facebook as part of their short-lived open Platform…and Bill Trenchard visited me in Queenstown, New Zealand while simultaneously seed-funding Uber.
Facebook owes everything to mobile. Zuckerberg is not a visionary. Just another predatory business model.
The question I have is: where is a photo of Steve Jobs at Pune 1?
*SPTN was the world’s first mobile ride-sharing app that I am aware of, designed while I was still in flight school. I got it resurrected as skyuber.com shortly after my first visit to India.
Careful…you might get banned from the Resort.
You are treading on thin ice.
My message above was meant for the staff of sannyas news. And, obviously, it is sarcastic.
Careful…
A friend of mine was banned from the Resort for posting on FB exactly what you are posting now. I’m serious, it really happened.
The courageous lions sannyasins are afraid of getting banned, so they don’t say a peep.
Ramateertha on EU Court of Justice Decision on the ‘Osho’ Trademark
On October 11, 2017, the European Court of Justice pronounced its verdict in the ‘Osho’ trademark case.
Our appeal requesting the cancellation of the trademark was dismissed, and the EUCJ has thus confirmed the validity of the trademark as a brand.
The subject of the relationship between Osho and meditation was debated in a hearing before the court in Luxembourg on December 13, 2016. At this hearing, the lawyer of Osho International Foundation stated: “Osho has nothing to do with meditation – it is a brand.” The court has now decided in favour of this interpretation.
In my view, it is a fateful irony that the name of the man who spent all his life speaking about meditation, and for whom meditation was the focus of his entire life and work, has now been established as the brand name of a business organisation in Europe.
Let us review the facts:
For the first eight years after Osho’s death in 1990 the use of the name Osho was not restricted in any way. The posthumous annexation and monopolisation of the name Osho began in around 1998 with its registration as a trademark for Osho International Foundation in Zurich. This was done behind the back of the community of Osho’s followers, clearly in an attempt to forestall possible (justified) objections to the registration.
The retrospective allegation that Osho himself wanted his name to be a trademark and that he actually ordered its registration is simply untrue. It is an attempt to mislead, and to legitimise OIF’s own objectives and plans.
In a press notice released on October 17, OIF writes that they are delighted that they are now able to preserve Osho’s message in its purest form, “like 24-karat gold”. This creates the impression that Osho himself personally entrusted OIF with this ‘task’. In reality, the request to disseminate and preserve his message ‘24-carat gold’ was made in a public lecture delivered by Osho in 1986, and it was addressed to all his disciples and friends! (Sermons in Stones, lecture 12, question 4). Here too, in my opinion, OIF is indirectly appointing itself as the guardian of Osho’s message and attempting to distract attention from its own real interests.
In the USA, Osho’s sannyasins resisted the monopolisation of his name, and after a trial lasting seven years the name Osho was cancelled as a trademark in the USA. The decisive point there was that Osho was seen as a spiritual teacher, and the use of the name Osho as a trademark was thus not allowed because it would have constituted a restriction of the free practice of religion.
The appeal against the use of the name ‘Osho’ as a trademark in Europe began in 2009, with the objective of enabling free use of the name Osho in Europe in the same way as in America. The European Patent Office ultimately dismissed the request to cancel the Osho trademark on the grounds that although Osho was a spiritual teacher, the content of his teachings was not concrete enough for his name to be able to stand for a clearly defined message.
During the litigation the OIF lawyer submitted an affidavit together with a will that Osho had allegedly made and signed around three months before his death. To the astonishment of everyone involved, this will proved to be a forgery. At the time the will was not legally relevant for the decision of the appeal, since the only question in dispute was whether Osho’s name had been rightfully registered as a trademark. However, submission of the forged will does show that OIF is prepared to use any means to establish itself as the heir apparent to Osho’s intellectual property – including the trademark, the copyright and his works of art.
One must ask whether such behaviour can be regarded as a proper qualification for preserving Osho’s message in its purest form, “like 24-carat gold”. This is at the very least a highly creative interpretation of the facts. I personally believe that money, power and control are more likely to be the real motives here.
And so now the European Court of Justice has confirmed the ruling of the European Patent Office. This is a decision that I believe to be wrong, because it completely ignores the question of free practice of religion and focuses only on the business aspects of the Osho trademark. To me ‘Osho’ has nothing to do with a brand but with Meditation. That was and still is the very centre of his life and teaching.
At no point in his life, until the day of his death, did Osho ever ask anyone to sign contracts or agreements of any kind. It is also an uncontested fact that Osho repeatedly and clearly stated that the Osho meditation centres should always remain free and independent of any other organisations. And it also remains a fact that nobody who does not want can be forced to sign a contract.
On the other hand, the registration of the trademark does not mean that one can no longer use the name Osho to refer to the historical person. This, in turn, means that there is a difference between OSHO and Osho, and living with both at the same time is certainly going to require a great deal of intelligence, creativity.
Cologne, October 21, 2017
https://www.facebook.com/ramateertha/posts/10155789608774346
Personally, unlike many who either want to repossess the old Ashram and take away the name of ‘Resort’, and put up hundreds of Osho photos, I am not concerned. Also I am not concerned about those who continue to want, as it were, to possess it.
The lifelong servant of Sannyas, Dhanyam, of Viha Connection, is, I think, still banned from the Resort and has been for some years. But he continues to serve Osho and act as a conduit for his work, and a very laudable one.
I am totally unconcerned as to whether if I wanted to pass through the Gateless Gate ever again I would get through!
I doubt it myself as I am a smaller version of a Dhanyam.
Whether the Aruns and Keertis and Shantams will ever get this I doubt.
But Osho is everywhere, and I am happy to embrace him wherever. And happy to embrace the full range of disciples everywhere who do not want to ‘rule’!
Parmartha, do you think your personal opinion and choice has the moral ground and deep penetrating spiritual insights, and others are lacking something?
Projections and perceptions are like photoshops. One can create a cat as big as elephant and reduce elephant to the size of a cat. Real cat and elephant won´t eat and can´t eat food as per their photoshopped size.
Try to understand your own position, you have not seen the last phase of Osho´s work in real terms, therefore there is no emotional investment. For me, everything is in memory in its multi-dimensional form.
You will be surprised to know there are hardly 30,50 participant visitors in Pune. Someone just told me few hours ago on the videochat. To hear of such a small number, my respect for human intelligence increased even more. People have become smarter to see under the superficial coat of modernity.
Great stance, Parmartha.