Pamela Geller and Robert B. Spencer

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2013

No. 77940879 (T.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2013)

Hearing

David Y

Maria-V
Strzyz,

Before C

Opinion
P
under §
mark:

in stand
prevent

1 Applica
: June 19,
UNIT
erushalmi
ictoria Su
Managing
ataldo, Ta
by Kuczm
amela Ge
1(b) of th
ard chara
ing terrori

tion Serial
P
2012
ED STAT
Trad
In re Pa
, Esq. for P
arez, Trad
Attorney).
ylor and K
a, Admini
ller and R
e Tradema
cter form f
sm,” in Int

No. 779408
THIS OPI
RECEDEN
ES PATEN
emark Tr
mela Gell
Serial
amela Ge
emark Ex

uczma, A
strative Tr
obert B.
rk Act, 15
or “providi
ernational
79, filed on
NION IS N
T OF TH

T AND T

ial and Ap
_____

er and Rob
_____

No. 779408
_____

ller and Ro
amining A
_____
dministrat
ademark J
Spencer, (
U.S.C. §
ng inform
Class 45.1
February 2
OT A
E TTAB
Mailed:
RADEMAR
peal Board
ert B. Spe
79
bert B. Sp
ttorney, L
ive Tradem
udge:
“applicant
1051(b), se

ation rega

1, 2010.
February
K OFFIC

ncer
encer.
aw Office
ark Judg
s”), filed
eking regi
rding unde
7, 2013
E
102 (Kare
es.
an applica
stration of
rstanding
n M.
tion
the
and
Serial No. 77940879

2

Registration of the mark was refused under § 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1052(a), on the ground that the applied-for mark consists of or includes
matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons,
institutions, beliefs or national symbols. Applicants timely filed a notice of appeal.
Applicants and the examining attorney submitted briefs, and appeared at the oral
hearing.2
A. Disparagement
Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act prohibits registration of a mark that
“consists of or comprises . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or
dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or
disrepute.” As noted in University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Food Imports Co.,
703 F.2d 1372, 1376, 217 USPQ 505, 509 (Fed. Cir. 1983), § 2(a) embodies concepts
of the right to privacy and publicity, that is, the right to protect and to control the
use of one’s identity. In effect, this provision of § 2(a) protects against appropriation
of one’s identity by another and subjecting it to contempt or ridicule. See
Greyhound Corp. v. Both Worlds Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1635, 1639 (TTAB 1988).
In In re Lebanese Arak Corp., the Board restated the test for disparagement
where the party alleging disparagement is a member of a non-commercial group,
such as a religious or racial group, as follows:
1) what is the likely meaning of the matter in question,
taking into account not only dictionary definitions, but
also the relationship of the matter to the other elements

2 The application was examined by Examining Attorney Maria-Victoria Suarez. Senior
Attorney Brian Brown represented the USPTO at the oral hearing.
Serial No. 77940879

3

in the mark, the nature of the goods or services, and the
manner in which the mark is used in the marketplace in
connection with the goods or services; and
2) if that meaning is found to refer to identifiable persons,
institutions, beliefs or national symbols, whether that
meaning may be disparaging to a substantial composite of
the referenced group.
In re Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 USPQ2d 1215, 1217 (TTAB 2010) (citing In re Heeb
Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1071, 1074 (TTAB 2008); In re Squaw Valley Development
Co., 80 USPQ2d 1264, 1267 (TTAB 2006); Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., (“Harjo I”) 50
USPQ2d 1705, 1740-41 (TTAB 1999), rev’d on other grounds, (“Harjo II”) 284
F.Supp.2d 96, 68 USPQ2d 1225 (D.D.C. 2003), remanded, 415 F.3d 44, 75 USPQ2d
1525 (D.C. Cir. 2005), on remand, 567 F.Supp.2d 46, 87 USPQ2d 1891 (D.D.C.
2008), aff’d 565 F.3d 880, 90 USPQ2d 1593 (D.C. Cir. 2009)).
1. Meaning of the Mark
Applicants and the examining attorney agree, as do we, that the test set forth
in Lebanese Arak is the applicable test, so we turn to the first prong of the test to
determine the meaning of the applied-for mark as used in connection with the
services identified in the application.
The examining attorney introduced several dictionary definitions for the term
“Islamize”3 which were consistent in indicating the term “Islamization”
(alternatively spelled “Islamisation” according to applicants) would be generally
understood to mean “converting or conforming to Islam”:4

3 The definitions indicate that “Islamization” is the noun form of the transitive verb
“Islamize.”
4 See attachments to April 28, 2010 and January 19, 2011 Office Actions.
Serial No. 77940879

4

Dictionary.com Unabridged based on the Random House
Dictionary:
1. To conform to Islam. 2. To bring into a state of
harmony or conformity with the principles and teachings
of Islam; give an Islamic character or identity to.
http://dictionary.reference.com
Merriam-Webster:
to make Islamic; especially: to convert to Islam
http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/islamization
EncartaWorldEnglish Dictionary:
1. Convert to Islam: to convert people or countries to
Islam. 2. Make subject to Islamic law: to cause people,
institutions, or countries to follow Islamic law.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary
Webster’s New World College Dictionary:
to convert or conform to, or bring within, Islam
http://yourdictionary.com/Islamize
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
Fourth Ed.:
1. To convert to Islam. 2. To cause to conform to Islamic
law or precepts.
http://yourdictionary.com/Islamize

The examining attorney also submitted the following definition for the word
“stop”:5
1. to cease from, leave off or discontinue: to stop running
2. to cause to cease; put an end to: to stop noise in the
street
http://dictionary.reference.com
and a definition for the word “terrorism”:
Dictionary.com Unabridged based on the Random House
Dictionary:
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce,

5 See attachments to April 28, 2010 Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

5

esp. for political purposes
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/islamize
Applying these definitions in the context of applicants’ STOP THE
ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA mark, the mark in its entirety 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. Considering the mark in connection with the
nature of applicants’ services namely, “providing information regarding
understanding and preventing terrorism,” conveys the further message that the
conversion or conformance to Islam must be stopped in order to prevent the
intimidating threats and violence associated with terrorism.
In addition to analyzing the definitions relative to applicants’ services, it is
appropriate for us to consider the manner in which applicants’ mark is or will be
used in the marketplace in connection with the services. Heeb Media, 89 USPQ2d
at 1075 citing Harjo I, 50 USPQ2d at 1739, 1742. To do this, we have reviewed the
portions of applicants’ website and blog (located at sioaonline.com) that are in the
record. The subject matter of the articles published on applicants’ website and
comments posted on applicants’ blog are consistent with the theme that the spread
of Islam in America, i.e., converting new members to the Islam religion, must be
stopped. For example, an article on applicants’ website entitled: SIOA Mosque
Manifesto: All Mosques are Not Created Equal, A Handy Guide to Fighting the
Muslim Brotherhood reports on communities in the United States that have taken
action against the building of mosques and provides a step-by-step guide for people
who find themselves “faced with a huge monster mosque proposal in their small
Serial No. 77940879

6

towns.” The article begins: “As we have been reminded time after time after grisly
Islamic terror plots have been exposed, there is always a mosque, and the
imprimatur of a cleric, behind every operation.” The articles entitled Geller,
Spencer in Big Government: The 9/11 Mosque’s Peace Charade and SIOA Condemns
Obama’s Blessing of Ground Zero Mega-Mosque; Bolton, Wilders to Speak At 9/11
Rally raise strong objections to the proposed building of a mosque and Islamic
Center near the site of the former World Trade Center in New York City that was
destroyed as a result of a terrorist attack in September 2001. The article entitled
Detroit Transit Sued for Nixing SIOA ‘Leaving Islam?’ Bus ads reports on a lawsuit
filed by applicant Geller against the Detroit-area bus authority for refusing to run
ads that offer assistance to those considering leaving Islam.6 There is no doubt that
the underlying theme in the articles which are featured immediately underneath
the website’s STOP THE ISLAMIZATION OF AMERICA7 banner is that the spread
of Islam in America is undesirable and must be stopped.
Comments submitted to applicants’ blog by readers of applicants’ website also
reflect the website’s message of stopping the spread of Islam in the United States:8
● [The trademark] implies that Islam is associated
with violence and threats.” IMPLIES??? Hell no! IT IS

6 See copies of webpages from www.sioaonline.com attached to January 19, 2011 Office
Action.
7 Although the word “Islamisation” as identified on the trademark drawing and in the
application is spelled “Islamisation” (with the letter “s”), the banner at the top of applicants’
website spells the word with the letter “z.” According to applicants, the word “Islamisation”
is an alternative spelling for “Islamization,” Applicants’ Appeal Brief p. 5.
8 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 54, 57-58 and 83 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
The spelling and punctuation in the readers’ comments are presented as contained in the
postings.
Serial No. 77940879

7

ASSOCIATED WITH VIOLENCE AND THREATS—
examples of that TRUTH ABOUND-ISLAM is a terror
group defined by their own Korana [a]nd imams what PC
and Muzzies have infiltrated the patent office? [Comment
by Whata buncha bull on April 29, 2010 at 10:36 AM in
response to article entitled “Sharia Trademark
Enforcement.”]
● Very few Americans are willing to educate
themselves on what Islam teaches – it is not love and
peace. They only know the propaganda the media and
Islamic organization indoctrinate them with each day.
This is why we are doomed to experience what every
country that has allowed it to exists, has experienced –
evil in its purest form.
If people only knew the truth, Islam would not be allowed
to exist in the USA or any other country. Franklin
Graham was right in saying, “Islam is evil.” [Comment by
Rick Holloway on May 12, 2010 at 10:59 AM in response
to article entitled “Sharia Trademark Enforcement.”]
● This closeted Muslim President MUST be
impeached, removed, and defeated before he continues to
take the USA down the worst path it has ever
encountered. Stop Islam Now, look at its history, lets not
let The USA face the same Islamic issues our brothers in
Europe are facing. [Comment by Erik on August 22, 2010
at 1:38 PM in response to article entitled: “SIOA
Condemns Obama’s Blessing of Ground Zero Mega-
Mosque.”]
Other comments reflect the public’s association of “Islamization” with “Islam:”9
● . . . here’s only one thing you can do and that’s say
no to Islam and the islamization of America. [Comment
by ‘nuff already on June 6, 2010 at 8:14 am]
● . . . Islamisation of America spells far more danger
than what once Nazism did. Islam is like a giant python
that can coil around you slowly and steadly before you
even know that you have been annihilated. [Comment by
Vedam on August 17, 2010 at 12:33 AM]

9 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 59 and 81 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

8

One reader specifically commented that applicants’ mark implies that applicants
wish to stop Islam:10
● I agree that radical islam is the number one threat
to this country’s, and most country’s, security. That said,
the name you chose does imply that you wish to stop
islam in this country. . . . [Comment by Alexandra on
May 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM]
It is noted that the foregoing is not a complete list of the comments; the evidence in
the record contains several additional inflammatory and/or negative readers’
comments relating to the Islamic faith and its followers that were posted to
applicants’ blog, and we have no indication whether all comments to the blog have
been submitted as evidence. While the probative value of the blog comments
submitted by readers of applicants’ website is less than that of the articles
themselves due to the anonymity of the authors, they provide additional insight into
the public’s perception of and reaction to applicants’ STOP THE ISLAMISATION
OF AMERICA mark and services as used in the marketplace.
The evidence comprising dictionary definitions and the manner in which the
mark is used and reacted to in the marketplace, taken together with the nature of
applicants’ services, provide probative evidence supporting the meaning of the mark
proposed by the examining attorney, i.e., to stop the conversion or conformance to
Islam in America in order to avoid terrorism.
Applicants advocate that Muslims do not use the term “Islamisation” “in the
broad generic way consonant with ‘Islamic’.” Rather, applicants argue there is a

10 See unnumbered attachment at p. 59 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

9

second definition of “Islamize” which conveys another meaning. That is, as set forth
in the foregoing definitions, “Islamize” also means “[t]o cause to conform to Islamic
law or precepts” (as defined at Dictionary.com) and “[m]ake subject to Islamic law:
to cause people, institutions, or countries to follow Islamic law” (as defined at
Encarta.com). This definition, i.e., to cause to be in conformity with Islamic law,
more closely corresponds to the meaning of “Islamisation” proffered by applicants,
namely, a sectarianization of a political society through efforts to “make [it] subject
to Islamic law.”11
According to applicants, Muslims understand “Islamisation” to mean the
“term of art to incorporate the political-legal movement to convert a society or
politic into a political society predicated upon and governed by Islamic law (i.e.,
Shariah).”12 In support of this meaning, applicants cite to uses of the term
“Islamisation” by professionals, academics and religious and legal experts. We refer
to the following excerpts from applicants’ evidence which provide some insight into
the use of the term “Islamization” and its propagation by Islamists, i.e., those that
promote Islamization as political ideology (emphasis added below):
Islamism is ultimately a long-term social engineering
project. The eventual “Islamization” of the world is to
be enacted via a bottom-up process. Initially, the
individual is Islamized into becoming a true Muslim. The
process requires the person to reject Western norms of
pluralism, individual rights, and the secular rule of law.
The process continues as the individual’s family is
transformed, followed by society, and then the state.
Finally, the entire world is expected to live and be

11 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief p. 8 and Applicants’ Reply Brief p. 4.
12 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief pp. 8-9.
Serial No. 77940879

10

governed by Islamic principles. So it is this ideological
machinery that works to promote separation, sedition,
and hatred, and that is at the core of Islamic violent
extremism. [Testimony of Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow
and Director of Center for Eurasian Policy, Hudson
Institute, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]13
Now what I would like to address very quickly is what I
believe i[s] the way to differentiate between Islamists
and normal ordinary Muslims . . . the four core elements
that I think are common to all Islamists regardless of the
methodology they employ–and the first one I identify is
that Islamists believe that Islam is a political ideology
rather than a religion . . . the second core element that
Islamists will all share is the notion that the Shariah
religious code, which is a personal code of conduct, must
become state law. . . [Testimony of Maajid Nawaz,
Director, The Quilliam Foundation, London, to U.S.
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]14
What needs to be countered is Islamism, the political
ideology, not Islam, the religion . . . The political ideology,
however, is diametrically opposed to liberal democracy
because it dictates that Islamic law, Shariah, to be the
only basis for the legal and political system that governs
the world’s economic, social, and judicial mechanisms and
that Islam must shape all aspects of life . . . Of course, not
all Islamists will one day become terrorists, but all
Islamist terrorists start with non-violent Islamism.
[Testimony of Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow and Director,
Center for Eurasian Policy, Hudson Institute, to U.S.
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]15
Thus, today we can say that the broad ideological current
of Islamism manifests itself in activist agendas that span
the complete spectrum from democratic politics to violent
efforts aimed at imposing Shariah law worldwide.

13 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 15 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
14 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 6 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
15 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 14 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

11

[Testimony of Peter P. Mandaville, PhD., Associate
Professor of Government and Politics, George Mason
University, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]16
In understanding what the ideology of Islamism is, it
would help to begin with the name. The suffix “ism” has
been added to Islam so as to draw attention to the
political nature of the subject matter. Islam is a faith;
Islamism is an ideology that uses Islam the faith as a
justification. Some of you may be reluctant in calling this
ideology Islamism. There exists an understandable
concern of not wanting to alienate Muslims. . . . [Written
Testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director of the Quilliam
Foundation, London, to U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10,
2008]17
The foregoing evidence originated from written testimony and transcripts of
record before the U.S. Senate Committee investigating “The Roots of Violent
Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It.” Applicants submitted additional
evidence including course materials authored by applicants’ counsel and others for
continuing legal education, a doctoral dissertation entitled “Islamization in
Pakistan: A Political and Constitutional Study from 1947-1988” submitted to the
University of Karachi (Karachi, Pakistan) in October 2004, and a list of law review
articles with limited excerpts from a selection of the articles. Given the nature and
intended audiences of this evidence it is less widely available and therefore, is not
necessarily reflective of the general public’s understanding of the meaning of

16 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 10 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
17 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 52 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

12

applicants’ mark. Indeed, applicants concede their evidence supports how Muslims
themselves actually use the term “Islamization.”18
We agree with the examining attorney that the several online dictionary
definitions are more reflective of the public’s current understanding of the term
“Islamisation” than applicants’ evidence, particularly because the public’s access
and exposure to applicants’ evidence is not readily apparent. Based on the
evidence, we conclude that one meaning of the mark is that the spread of Islam in
America is undesirable and should be stopped in order to avoid or reduce terrorism.
Although applicants’ evidence is less probative of the meaning of the mark to the
general public or to the American Muslim population at large, it evidences a second
meaning of the mark at least to academic, professional, legal and religious experts
based on the more narrow definition of the term “Islamisation” espoused by
applicants.
As acknowledged by applicants, both Harjo I and Harjo II make clear that a
term that has multiple meanings must be understood–for purposes of the “meaning”
analysis–in the context of how it is used in the public domain relevant to the mark.
If more than one meaning is established, both meanings advance to the second
phase of the analysis, i.e., does the group at issue consider the term as used in the
context of the services disparaging?19 With this in mind, we consider whether
applicants’ mark is disparaging.

18 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief pp. 8-9.
19 See Applicants’ Reply Brief p. 3.
Serial No. 77940879

13

2. Whether Mark Disparages Substantial Composite of
Referenced Group
Addressing the second prong of the test, the definitions of Islamization
submitted by the examining attorney clearly identify the referenced group as those
who have converted or conformed to Islam, i.e., followers of the Islamic religion, who
are also known as Muslims. Applicants also acknowledge that the referenced group
is American Muslims.20 Accordingly, we find both meanings of the mark refer to
Muslims in the United States.
Trademarks may disparage if they “dishonor by comparison with what is
inferior, slight, deprecate, degrade, or affect or injure by unjust comparison.” Harjo
II, 68 USPQ2d at 1247; Harjo I, 50 USPQ2d at 1738. The question now, is whether
either meaning of the mark is disparaging to a substantial composite of the
referenced group, i.e., Muslims in America.
Applicants argue that if the word “Islamisation” refers to only those groups
and movements which seek to compel a political order to adopt Islamic law as the
law of the land, law abiding and patriotic Muslims, who are not members of such
groups, would not be disparaged by the mark.21 The difficulty with applicants’
argument is twofold: it assumes a substantial composite of Muslims understands
the meaning of “Islamisation” asserted by applicants and that they would not be
offended by the mark STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA.

20 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief pp. 14-15; Reply Brief p. 7.
21 See Applicants’ Appeal Brief p. 12.
Serial No. 77940879

14

There is no evidence showing a substantial composite of the Muslim
population in the United States understands the word “Islamisation” to have the
meaning asserted by applicants. Applicants concede “[T]he only Muslims who
actually use the term ‘Islamisation’ in any public or published fashion are those
adherents to Islamisation known in the literature as Islamists, Muslim
professionals dealing with counterterrorism, and Muslim academics who study the
phenomenon of Islamisation within varied disciplines such as law, political science,
and the study of terrorism.”22 The evidence submitted by applicants to support
their specific definition of the term includes a doctoral dissertation submitted to a
university in Pakistan, written and oral testimony presented to the U.S. Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs during a hearing on
the “Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It,” course
materials for a legal seminar entitled “Shariah-Compliant Finance: Benign or
Benevolent,” U.S. Department of Justice Sentencing Press Release, a “theoretical”
paper by a Shariah scholar entitled “The Process of Islamization” published in 1976
and later published online, and printouts from various websites for Muslim-based
organizations that do not show use of the term Islamization.23 While such evidence

22 See applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action p. 5.
23 See applicants’ Exhibits 1-12 submitted with applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office
Action. Included as Exhibit 10 is a list of 246 articles that were represented to be the
results of a search of the Lexis-Nexis database. Inasmuch as the list of articles contained
snippets from the articles showing use of the term “Islamization” in some identifiable U.S.
publications, the list evidences use of the term in U.S. publications. However, the vast
majority of articles were published in law reviews and appear to relate to the history and
extent of Islamization activities in countries outside of the United States, with several
articles addressing the same countries or geographic regions. Of the twenty-four excerpts
from these articles provided in applicants’ Exhibit 11, twenty-one of the excerpts appear to
Serial No. 77940879

15

provides some insight into the use of the term “Islamization,” and the process of
“Islamization,” they do not establish whether or how the term is perceived by the
general Muslim population in the United States.
Even if a substantial composite of the U.S. Muslim population understands
“Islamisation” to have the more specific meaning asserted by applicants, the mark
is disparaging because the term “Islamisation” has another more general meaning
relating to conversion to Islam. Moreover, a substantial composite of Muslims
regardless of their personal understanding of the term “Islamization” would be
disparaged by the mark if the general non-Muslim population understands the term
“Islamization” to relate to converting or confirming to Islam, endowing the mark
with the more likely meaning of stopping the spread of Islam in America.
The confusing overlap in terminology is likely to exacerbate the public’s
understanding of applicants’ mark and its disparaging connotation. Muslim
followers of “Islam,” “Islamism” and its “Islamist” proponents, and “Islamization,”
are all centered on the Islamic religion. The foregoing terms share the root word
“Islam” and are encompassed by the term “Islamic.” “[F]or most Americans, dealing
with Islamism is extremely difficult because it is associated with Islam . . . What
needs to be countered is Islamism the political ideology, not Islam, the religion.”24
That this confusion exists is supported by the statement of one of the experts

discuss Islamization outside of the United States; it is not possible to tell whether the
remaining articles specifically address Islamization in the United States.
24 See Testimony of Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Eurasian Policy,
Hudson Institute, to Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United
States Senate on July 10, 2008 attached as Exhibit 3(a) p.14 to applicants’ July 26, 2010
Response to Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

16

testifying before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs that “I firmly believe that by claiming the word Islamism, and helping shape
how it is used, one can direct the debate in the right way with the intention of
distinguishing the ideology from the faith.”25
The admonition in the mark to STOP sets a negative tone and signals that
Islamization is undesirable and is something that must be brought to an end in
America. In light of the meaning of “Islamization” as referring to conversion to
Islam, i.e., spreading of Islam, use of the mark in connection with preventing
terrorism creates a direct association of Islam and its followers with terrorism.
There is sufficient evidence that the majority of Muslims are not terrorists
and are offended by being associated as such. The following articles provide some
pertinent examples:
Offended Muslims Speak Up
At a time of growing tensions involving Muslims in the
United States, a record number of Muslim workers are
complaining of employment discrimination, from co-
workers calling them “terrorist” or “Osama” to employers
barring them from wearing head scarves or taking prayer
breaks. . . . [T]he rising number of complaints by
Muslims, which exceeds even the amount filed in the year
after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, comes as tensions rise
between Muslim Americans and those of other faiths.
9/24/2010 The New York Times, Late Edition-Final.26

25 See Appendix to July 10, 2008 Hearing before US Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs written testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director of the
Quilliam Foundation, London, attached as Exhibit 3(a) p.52 to applicants’ July 26, 2010
Response to Office Action.
26 See unnumbered attachment at p.12 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

17

Show of support for Muslims; Religious leaders call
for tolerance amid tensions
Ammal Khateeb, a Tinley Park resident at Friday’s
prayer service, said she has grown tired of what she sees
as anti-Muslim sentiment that automatically associates
Islam with terrorism. “That is why I don’t wear the
(hijab) scarf. It’s never been good after 9/11. I’m scared,”
she said. “I don’t want my kids to go through this
racism.” 9/12/2010 Chicago Tribune Sunday Early
Edition.27
Arab culture and Muslim stereotypes
The press . . . regularly uses the terms “Islamic” or
“Muslim” as adjectives for terrorists. . . . [I]t is time . . .
that the Western press, politicians, and public stop
thinking of Islamic as another word for terrorism. 6/21-
6/27/2008 The Arab American News.28
Muslims say terrorists have hijacked their faith
. . . People make assumptions that all Muslims are
terrorists, (county spokeswoman Afsheen Shamsi said). . .
We believe [Islamic terrorist] is not the right terminology
to use, because it links something very positive, like
Islam, with the word “terrorist.” 6/2/2008 Courier News
(Bridgewater, New Jersey).29
Muslim victims of 9/11 deserve a mosque
By conflating the 9/11 terrorists and Islam, the opponents
of the mosque are telling Muslim Americans: Do not
bother; through your shared religion, you and the
terrorists are the same. 9/10/2010 The Star-Ledger
(Newark, New Jersey) State/ROP Edition30
. . . one must remain cognisant [sic] of the fact that
the majority of Muslims are not Islamists . . .
[Written Testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director of the
Quilliam Foundation, London, to U.S. Senate Committee

27 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 17-18 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
28 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 13-15 of April 28, 2010 Office Action.
29 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 19-20 of April 28, 2010 Office Action.
30 See unnumbered attachment at p. 23 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

18

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United
States Senate on July 10, 2008]31
The only true allies in countering an ideology that is
fundamentally opposed to America and its ideas are those
Muslims who share American ideas, or at the very least
do not work to undermine them. This group includes the
pious and practicing, the liberal, the secular, and the
cultural ones; the quiet but still the overwhelming
majority of American Muslims. . . . [S]o in closing, I
would like to underline that to effectively counter the
further spread of violent manifestations of Islamism, the
United States needs to seriously engage in countering the
Islamist ideology. . . [Testimony of Zeyno Baran Senior
Fellow and Director of Center for Eurasian Policy,
Hudson Institute, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10, 2008]32
In view of the foregoing, applicants’ mark used in connection with their
services would be disparaging to a substantial composite of Muslims in America.
Notably, the use of a similar name in England, “Stop the Islamisation of Europe,”
has been objected to as being disparaging and threatening to non-Islamist Muslims.
In that instance, in response to a demonstration outside of a mosque under the
banner “Stop the Islamisation of Europe,” British Muslims for Secular Democracy
(BMSD), a group which “do[es] not wish to Islamicise Britain or Europe,” published
a letter dated November 20, 2009, directed to the group utilizing the name “Stop the
Islamisation of Europe” in England.33 The letter by BMSD states that Muslims
“end up feeling threatened” by such a demonstration and also explains that the Stop
the Islamisation of Europe campaign “is fueling the notion that somehow

31 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 52 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
32 See Exhibit 3(a) p. 18 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
33 See unnumbered attachments at pp. 120-121 of January 19, 2011 Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

19

organizations such as [Stop the Islamisation of Europe] are against Muslims and
the religion Islam in itself.” While the foregoing took place in Britain and therefore
would not usually be considered probative evidence of the reactions by Muslim
Americans to applicants’ mark, it nonetheless is illuminative of the impact that the
use of applicants’ strikingly similar STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA
mark would have in the United States, which like Britain, is an English-speaking
Western-based democratic society.34
The mark is also disparaging in the context of applicants’ definition of
“Islamisation.” According to the definition urged by applicants and supported by
their evidence, “Islamization” refers to a political movement to replace man-made
laws with the religious laws of Islam.35 Notably, the process of “Islamization” is not
defined nor described by applicants’ evidence to mandate the use of violence or
terrorism (emphasis added below):

34 As shown by the evidence, applicants’ website contains links to Stop the Islamization of
Europe and Stop the Islamization of England, as well as similarly named groups in
numerous other countries. Although the copy of the letter from BMSD submitted by the
examining attorney as an attachment to the January 19, 2011 Office Action does not
contain the URL information or the date it was printed, the Office Action issued January
19, 2011 indicates that the letter may be found at
http://www.bmsd.org.uk/pdfs/islamification.pdf. Inasmuch as applicants have not
objected to the admissibility of this letter and have in fact used it to support their position
(see Applicants’ Appeal Brief pp. 12-15), we have considered the letter for whatever
probative value it may have. See In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 82 USPQ2d
1828, 1835 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (depending on the record, information originating on foreign
websites or in foreign news publications that are accessible to the U.S. public may be
relevant to discern U.S. consumer impression of a proposed mark) and In re Remacle, 66
USPQ2d 1222 (TTAB 2002) (Board found professionals in certain fields such as medicine,
engineering, computers and telecommunications would be likely to monitor developments
in their fields without regard to national boundaries, and that the internet facilitates such
distribution of knowledge, so evidence from an English language web site in Great Britain
held admissible).
35 See Applicants’ Reply Brief p. 7.
Serial No. 77940879

20

Islamists believe that Islam is a political ideology rather
than a religion.… Now, these shared elements, though
common between all Islamists, this doesn’t imply that
Islamists are all of one shade. Islamists do differ in
their tactics and methodologies. I have identified
three types of Islamists. They are first either political
Islamists, who are those who use entry-level politics and
tactics by working within the system through the ballot
box to try and bring about this ideology. These are, by
and large, people who are non-violent, yet they have
an ideological agenda. . . The second type of Islamist,
again, from these four shared elements, are the
revolutionary Islamists . . . and their methodology is to
infiltrate the militaries, to overthrow the regimes of the
Middle East thorough military coups, and those in this
category do not believe in using the ballot box or working
through the system. And the final category of Islamists
are the militant Islamists, or the jihadists, who believe in
an armed struggle against the status quo. [Testimony of
Maajid Nawaz, Director, The Quilliam Foundation,
London, to U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs United States Senate on July
10, 2008]36
Not all Islamists employ terrorism as a tactic . . .
[Written Testimony of Maajid Nawaz, Director of the
Quilliam Foundation, London, to U.S. Senate Committee
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs United
States Senate on July 10, 2008]37
Thus, today we can say that the broad ideological
current of Islamism manifests itself in activist
agendas that span the complete spectrum from
democratic politics to violent efforts aimed at
imposing Shariah law worldwide. . . . [W]e were
asked to address the question of how a more in-depth
understanding of the ideology of violent Islamism can
improve America’s national security. We need to
recognize that violent Islamism is part of a wider
ecology of Muslim and Islamist thought and

36 See Exhibit 3(a) pp. 6-8 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office Action.
37 See Exhibit 3(a) pp. 52, 54 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office
Action.
Serial No. 77940879

21

practice. [Testimony of Peter P. Mandaville, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of Government and Politics, George
Mason University to U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10,
2008]38
The starting point has to be distinguishing between
Muslims and Islamists, and between Islam (the religion)
and Islamism (the political ideology). Islam, the religion,
deals with piety, ethics, and beliefs, and can be
compatible with secular liberal democracy and basic civil
liberties. Islamists, however, believe Islam is the only
(emphasis original) basis for the legal and political system
that governs the world’s economic, social, and judicial
mechanisms. Islamic law, or sharia, must shape all
aspects of human society, from politics and education to
history, science, the arts, and more. It is diametrically
opposed to liberal democracy. . . . This is not to say that
all Islamists will one day become terrorists; the vast
majority will never engage in violence and in fact
are likely to abhor terrorist acts. [Comments of Zeyno
Baran Senior Fellow and Director of Center for Eurasian
Policy, Hudson Institute, to U.S. Senate Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on July 10,
2008]39
A further flaw in applicants’ argument that their mark is not disparaging is
that it fails to take into account the nature of the services identified in their
application. Applicants’ use of the STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA
mark in connection with services to provide information regarding understanding
and preventing terrorism creates an association with terrorism that would be
disparaging to a substantial composite of Muslims whether or not they embrace

38 See Exhibit 3(a) pp. 10, 12 attached to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office
Action.
39 See Exhibit 2 pp. 1-2 and Exhibit 3 p. 68 to applicants’ July 26, 2010 Response to Office
Action.
Serial No. 77940879

22

Islamization. It is certainly clear that an association with terrorism is disparaging
to Muslims who are not adherents of violent or terrorist activities.
The anti-Muslim social climate in the U.S. reflected in the articles excerpted
below amplifies the disparaging impact of applicants’ mark:
Americans remain conflicted about the Muslim faith . . .
[an] ABC/Washington Post poll found 49 percent with an
unfavorable view of Islam . . .40
A Time magazine poll . . . found that 43 percent of
Americans hold unfavorable views of Muslims . . .
Although the overall level of anti-Muslim sentiment
hasn’t shifted much . . . the change in tone has been
striking . . . The reasons are myriad: rising fears of
homegrown terrorism after the Fort Hood shootings and
the attempted Times Square bombing. . . . Residents
worry that ‘the Muslims coming in here will keep growing
in numbers and override our system of law and impose
sharia law . . .41
Still other Muslims, citing what they say is increasing
anti-Muslim sentiment in America, have come to view
such efforts as useless.42
. . . what many observers see as a growing anti-Islam
fervor . . .43
. . . a recent uptick in anti-Muslim acts nationally . . .44

40 See article entitled: “Anti-Muslim tensions roil the melting pot” published in The Dallas
Morning News on September 11, 2010, attached to January 19, 2011 Office Action.
41 See article entitled: “Nowhere near Ground Zero, but no more welcome” published in The
Washington Post Suburban Edition on August 23, 2010, attached to January 19, 2011
Office Action.
42 See article entitled: “Muslims work to retake ‘jihad’ from extremists” published in the
Times-Picayune (New Orleans) on May 24, 2008, attached to April 28, 2010 Office Action.
43 See article entitled: “Mosque furor, Quran burning: Anti-Islamic fervor mobilizes US
Muslims” published in The Christian Science Monitor on September 10, 2010 attached to
January 19, 2011 Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

23

The Bay Area, known for its multicultural diversity and
acceptance, is not immune to the anti-Muslim sentiment
that has infected the country. . . . Life is mostly normal for
Burrell, who feels both devoutly Muslim and
quintessentially Californian. But anti-Muslim sentiment,
whether it’s in the news or on the sidewalk, can take a toll
on her and her Muslim friends, she said.45
In view of the foregoing, we find that under either meaning of applicants’
mark, when the mark is used in connection with the services identified in the
application, namely providing information for understanding and preventing
terrorism, the mark is disparaging to Muslims in the United States and is therefore
not registrable.
3. First Amendment
Applicants’ argument that the USPTO’s refusal to register their mark
violates their free speech rights under the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution is unavailing. Regardless of whether applicants’ mark is protected free
speech, our decision does not impact their rights under the First Amendment. The
refusal to register applicants’ mark does not impede their right to use the mark. As
such, it imposes no restraint or limit on their ability to communicate ideas or
express points of view, and does not suppress any tangible form of expression. See
In re Boulevard Entertainment Inc., 334 F.3d 1336, 1343, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1480
(Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F. 3d 1367, 1374, 31 USPQ2d

44 See article entitled: “Center an anti-Islamic target” published in the Los Angeles Times
Home Edition on January 3, 2010, attached to January 19, 2011 Office Action.
45 See article entitled: “For an American Muslim, stares, misunderstandings come with the
territory” published in the San Jose Mercury News on September 14, 2010, attached to
January 19, 2011 Office Action.
Serial No. 77940879

24

1923, 1928-29 (Fed. Cir. 1994); and In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481, 484, 211 USPQ
668, 672 (CCPA 1981). Therefore, applicants’ rights are not abridged by the refusal
to register their mark.

Decision: The refusal to register applicants’ mark under Section 2(a) of the
Trademark Act is affirmed.