It is astonishing that the Trademark Office would reject our trademark because the concept of resisting Islamization is supposedly demeaning to Muslims, when millions of Muslims in Egypt last year successfully stood up against Islamization and threw off the Muslim Brotherhood regime. The mainstream media regularly referred to their resisting Islamization, only considering the term disparaging when we used it.
“Supreme Court Asked to Review the U.S. Trademark Office’s Rejection of ‘STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA’ Trademark,” American Freedom Law Center, August 11, 2014:
Washington, D.C. (August 11, 2014) — Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC), a national nonprofit Judeo-Christian law firm, filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer asking the Court to review the rejection of their trademark application for STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA. Geller and Spencer are two well-known bloggers, authors, and social-political activists who oppose the imposition of Islamic law (or sharia) in any form in America and elsewhere in the West.
AFLC’s petition asks the Court to review the earlier ruling in May of this year by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit, a specialized federal appeals court that hears most of the patent and trademark appeals from across the county, had upheld the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board’s (TTAB) denial of the trademark application for STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA. In its ruling, the court of appeals agreed with the TTAB and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that the trademark disparaged Muslims and unfairly linked them to terrorism.
In February 2010, Geller and Spencer, executive directors of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, an advocacy organization that raises awareness about the terror threat posed by sharia-adherent Islamists, applied to the PTO in Washington, D.C., to register the trademark STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA to foster and provide an understanding of how to prevent sharia-based tyranny and Islamist terrorism.
The PTO rejected the application in an “Office Action” based on the following analysis: (1) “Islamisation” means converting to Islam or “to make Islamic” and (2) “Stop” would be understood to mean that “action must be taken to cease, or put an end to, converting or making people in America conform to Islam.” Thus, the trademark, according to the “Office Action” ruling, disparaged Muslims and linked them to terrorism. To reach this conclusion, however, the PTO ignored the record evidence and instead examined and parsed the political writings of Geller and Spencer.
AFLC, which is representing Geller and Spencer, is a national nonprofit law firm with a track record of successful trademark and copyright litigation. AFLC has defended the trademark application at every level of the appeal process, arguing that the term “Islamisation” is not broadly defined as a conversion of an individual, or even a whole society to the religion of Islam, or to the state of being more culturally Islamic. Rather, AFLC argued based on the evidence that “Islamisation” is the process of implementing sharia into a society in order to subvert the rule of law and to convert that society to a sharia-compliant Islamic state.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, AFLC argues that the Supreme Court should take up the case because the lower court and the TTAB effectively granted the PTO license to read a trademark applicant’s blog and other political writings and to then reject the trademark because the government did not approve of the applicant’s political viewpoint.
David Yerushalmi, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, commented: “The only evidence in the record before the PTO and the Federal Circuit was that STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA was an appropriate mark for trademark registration. In a blatant disregard of the evidence, the government and the court of appeals simply looked past the evidence, read Ms. Geller’s blog, and decided that the viewpoint of her political writings was disparaging of Muslims. This, despite the fact that Muslims themselves use the term ‘Islamisation’ to distinguish between the ‘bad’ political Islam fomenting jihad across the globe from the ‘good’ religion of Islam peacefully practiced by Muslims in America and elsewhere.”
Robert Muise, AFLC Co-Founder and Senior Counsel, added: “Permitting the government to deny a trademark based on an applicant’s political viewpoint is troubling and a violation of the First Amendment. What we are seeing here in the PTO is akin to what the IRS is doing to conservative and TEA party groups across the country. The Supreme Court needs to take up this important case.”
###
The American Freedom Law Center is a Judeo-Christian law firm that fights for faith and freedom. It accomplishes its mission through litigation, public policy initiatives, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. Visit us at www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org.
Anthony Mundane says
What the HELL? That is absolutely terrifying decision. Surely this could not stand up in the court of law. What an absurd decision.
Centurion_Cornelius says
Law? What law? Look how courts treat private bproperty:
America has been “LAWLESS” for sometime now. Rule by diktat, fiat, and royal prerogative. When an ex-state governor and crony of the “D” party can steal over $1,700,000,000 and get away with it (without prosecution, mind you) by testifying “I don’t know where it went,” America has been “Corzined” by BHO.
Don’t even go to the Federal Court system–with little exception, a band of unconstitutional perverts with a death wish of their own.
Do you even fathom how out of control our courts are?
quotha raven says
Too true; I’ve been semi-comatose ever since Supreme’s decision in “Kelo versus New London”, which expanded the right of eminent domain to include snatching private property and delivering it to another private entity, such as a big corporation.
quotha raven says
This shameful action by the Patents people is exactly like the abuse by the IRS of its legal limits in denying conservative groups “not-for-profit” status. It mimics the worst abuses by egregious totalitarian systems like Soviet Union, China under Mao, others you may wish to name.
Michael Copeland says
Beware the apparently harmless word “implement”, used in “implement Sharia”. Anjem Choudary employs it, but has only contempt for man-made law, namely Statutes, which are indeed “implemented”, but only after they have gone through Parliament. When he uses “implement” he means “impose”. The illegal Sharia Zone posters in London made it clearer: “Sharia Rules Enforced”. Thus Choudary’s “implement” means “impose by force”.
Other speakers have used similarly sly dishonest substitutes for “impose by force” when they talk of Sharia. Faisal Abdul Rauf of the Ground Zero Mosque uses “introduce”. Isn’t that just so charming? Faisal Shahzad, the would-be Times Square bomber said “install”: it all sounds so sweet and reasonable, but these words are screens.
Muslims who are not seeking to guile Western listeners are less coy.
“Sharia can only be established with weapons” declares the Islamic State fighter in the video “The Spread of the Caliphate”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/islamic-state-send-your-soldiers-we-will-humiliate-them-everywhere-god-willing-and-we-will-raise-the-flag-of-allah-in-the-white-house .
“The Christians must convert to Islam, pay the jizya poll tax, or be killed”, related
Archbishop Nikodinos Daoud, of Mosul, Iraq (MEMRI TV).
We just need to be careful when people say “implement”.
Walter Sieruk says
The whole strategy of Islamisatiion of the United States is also known as an Islamic scheme called “gradualism. In some way this process can be very subtle.The Islamic quest to make things and places more Sharia -complaint takes time . Yet the stealth jihad Muslims can, in some ways , be very patient and their scheme can ,in time, be very effective. Furthermore, in some way this is similar to the teachings of Sun Tzu in THE ART OF WAR. Which reads “At first then ,exhibit the coyness of a maiden, until the enemy gives you an opening; afterwards emulate the rapidity of a running hare, and it will be too late for the enemy to opposes you.”
Yaakov Holansky says
Is this within the purview of their Rules & Regulations to consider such an issue? Has there ever been another example of them refusing a trademark for this reason? It sounds very hard to swallow. Lastly isn’t there a conflict of church state for an agency not tasked to make such considerations and wouldn’t it be illegal for them to disclose to the Public any information about the details of an application for a trademark?
Paleologos says
The time is fast approaching where the U.S. cannot afford the luxury of waiting out the remainder of our islamo-turd POTUS’s second term, and all his little islamo-democrat-turd sycophants reign of terror/power.
Geert is tolling a very grim warning bell …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhCipT8yQjM
R/
Paleologos
Salah says
“..when millions of Muslims in Egypt last year successfully stood up against Islamization and threw off the Muslim Brotherhood regime.”
As an egyptian christian myself, I am proud of my fellow egyptians, both muslims and christians. No other country has been able to achieve such a victory. At least, not yet!
33 million egyptians, the biggest demonstration in the history of mankind:
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-end-of-muslim-brotherhood.html
Angemon says
Salah posted:
““..when millions of Muslims in Egypt last year successfully stood up against Islamization and threw off the Muslim Brotherhood regime.”
As an egyptian christian myself, I am proud of my fellow egyptians, both muslims and christians. No other country has been able to achieve such a victory. At least, not yet!”
I’d say Italy, France or Spain did something comparable centuries ago, but they’re throwing it out the window now…
islamforbids.com says
This will tell us a lot about how far down the round we have traveled. I have heard the ‘West is not and never will be at war with Islam.” To me that means surrender since they are at war with the world .
Michael Copeland says
Those were Obama’s words. They seem to be his coded message that Islam will not be resisted in the USA.
David says
The Islamatization of the world, a world wide caliphate if you will, is the ultimate goal of all this terror. Christianity has the same goal, and it is all peaceful with love for one another. There is a distinct difference: Jesus, the only begotten Son of the true God.
I fear that in the US there is a silent army growing in Muslim communities. I say this because I see no tangible proof in the news, the press, or on the internet of the American Muslim disapproval of what is happening. A little here or there, but nothing substantial.
Billie-Bob says
Is it true that the American Freedom Law Center not argue in earlier courts against the constitutionality of the law in question? Why ever not???
This seems like an omission because they cannot bring the issue of constitutionality up now in the Supreme Court.
Uncle Vladdi says
Being a “muslim” is demeaning to the dignity of any and all human beings.
Kids being born into “islam” the religion of pacifying extortion, is the crime.
Islam is nothing more than an ancient, ongoing extortion-racket CRIME syndicate, and it should be banned because everything its “muslim” members pretend is “holy,” is already a crime.
Still, “islam: wouldn’t exist without any “muslims” to run it, any more than “national socialism” could exist without any “nazis,” Robert.
You can’t be against “islam” yet also NOT be against individual “muslims.”
😉
….PS: Heeeyyyyyy this is the third attempt posting this; is “nazi” a banned or censored word here?!