🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 02:32:01 GMT, "No Spam" <nospam@hormel.org> wrote:

>
>"Way Back Jack" <humpin@home.net> wrote in message 
>news:43126196.52480859@news.prodigy.net...
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 01:05:53 GMT, "No Spam" <nospam@hormel.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Way Back Jack" <humpin@home.net> wrote in message
>>>news:43125dfe.51561078@news.prodigy.net...
>>>> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 20:36:09 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh@comcast.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> live with Nazis, Communists, et. al.  But those miscreants are all
>>>>>> direct
>>>>>> beneficiaries of the ACLU.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>and aclu would defend you for it, protection is for everybody, look what
>>>>>happened to the whackos in waco, society didn't approve of them and the
>>>>>government wiped them out because of it. just being a nut shouldn't get
>>>>>you
>>>>>arrested and killed unfairly.
>>>>
>>>> ACLU protection's not for everybody.
>>>>
>>>> They refused to represent a former law-enforcement officer who
>>>> requested and was denied a patent for "White Pride Country Wide."
>>>>
>>>> The fact that the Patent Office granted patents for: "Black Pride,"
>>>> "Black Power," "La Raza," and even "Burn, Baby, Burn," did not phase
>>>> ACLU.
>>>
>>>Since you obviously know nothing about trademarks,
>>>not even enough to distinguish them from patents,
>>>your cridibility on this subject is close to zero.
>>
>> Yes, it was a trademark application.
>>
>> But you miss the point.
>
>No, you miss the point, and you lack the facts.
>
>> Why the double-standard?
>
>Did the ACLU have anything to do with the cases in which
>trademarks were granted? And what the fuck is "did not
>phase ACLU" supposed to mean. Even if you meant "faze"
>it still makes no sense. Do you have ANY facts in this
>matter, or are you just babbling in the dark? Do you have
>even two brain cells to rub tgether to create a spark? 


Feds Rule �White Pride� is �Offensive� and �Immoral�

Justin J. Moritz, AR News exclusive, Aug. 2


If you are looking for more evidence that the United States government
is biased against white people, you can add their decision in my
trademark case. In February, 2004, I applied for a trademark on the
words �White Pride Country Wide.� I did it as an exercise against
political correctness. I intentionally did not choose �white power,�
�white supremacy� or �the white race� because of the negative
connotations of those terms. Trademarks can be denied to offensive
phrases. 

When I later searched United States Patent and Trademark Office
(USPTO) records, I found that �Black Power,� �Black Supremacy,� and
�La Raza� (Spanish for �The Race�) had all been approved by the USPTO
and been found not to be offensive. The USPTO had also approved and
registered �The Black Panther Party� and �Burn, Baby, Burn,� the
party�s slogan. The Black Panthers had assassinated white police
officers but neither term was found to be offensive or immoral. To me,
�white pride� was a non-offensive, positive term, or at least I
thought so. 

On December 23, 2004, I received my Christmas present from the USPTO.
In an Office Action prepared by Barbara Rutland, it denied my
trademark, ruling that the �white pride� part of my request was
�offensive,� �immoral,� and �scandalous.� Here are her very words: 

�Section 2(a) Refusal

�Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or
comprises immoral or scandalous matter. Trademark Act Section 2(a)
U.S.C. 1052(a); TMEP 1203.01. According to the attached evidence from
a Lexis/Nexis database and a search of the Internet using the search
engine www.google.com, the �WHITE PRIDE� element of the proposed mark
is considered offensive and therefore scandalous.� 

My Appeal 

On January 1, 2005, I decided to appeal the USPTO decision, but not
before doing some research. I found that that the following �pride�
terms have all been registered as trademarks by the U.S Government: 

�African Pride,� �African Man Pride,� �Asian Pride,� �Bahama Pride,�
�Black Pride,� �Brazilian Pride,� �China-Pride,� �Chippewa Pride,�
�Choctaw Pride,� �Colombian Pride,� �Cuban Pride,� �Dakota Pride,�
�Dominican Pride,� �El Salvador Pride,� �Ecuador Pride,� �Gay Pride
Apparel,� �Guyanese Pride,� �Havana Pride,� �Honduran Pride,� �Indian
Pride,� �Jamaica�s Pride,� �Jewish Pride,� �Kwanzaa Pride,� �Long
Beach Lesbian and Gay Pride,� �Mayan Pride,� �Mexican Pride,� �Native
Pride!,� �Nicaraguan Pride,� �Orgullo Hispano� (Hispanic Pride),
�Orgoglio� (Hispanic��Great Pride� (supremacy?)), �Qisqueya Pride�
(Dominican Republic Pride), �Rainbow Pride Coach,� �Red Pride,� �San
Diego Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride,� �Spanish Pride,� and
�West Indian Pride.� 

The factual evidence for my appeal was overwhelming, or at least I
thought so. It seemed as though the federal government wanted
everybody to have pride, except white people. It seemed to be a clear
case of discrimination. 

USPTO denies appeal 

In February 2005, the USPTO issued their �FINAL OFFICE ACTION.� It was
again prepared by Barbara Rutland. The USPTO upheld its original
denial, explaining: 

�� prior decisions and actions of other trademark examining attorneys
in registering different marks are without evidentiary value (emphasis
added) and are not binding upon the Office.� 

In plain English, the USPTO was saying that their own records cannot
be used against it. Imagine a taxpayer being audited by the IRS. Could
he sit back and say, �Go ahead, audit me, but you can�t use my records
against me�? 

I lost my $1,300 non-refundable trademark application fee. 

ACLU denies assistance and adds insult 

My next step was to seek outside help from the Minnesota branch of the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). I sent a brief letter to the
ACLU-MN summarizing my case and asking if they were interested. They
initially said they were willing to review the case, so I sent them
pages of documentation. I thought I might have a chance since the ACLU
prides itself on defending the rights of the little guy. I am white,
male, heterosexual, married, employed, native born, English speaking,
Christian-valued, have no criminal record, and am a retired law
enforcement officer. I could be the perfect �token� case outside their
mainstream clientele, or at least I thought so. 

In March 2005, the ACLU not only turned my case down but took the
opportunity to slam white people and Christians. Renee Hamilton, legal
assistant for the ACLU-MN, wrote: 

�Thus, when the PTO examined Moritz�s mark, their rejection of his
mark was reasonable given that such a slogan has just but one meaning
i.e. superiority of what he term (sic) �the white race� over all other
races and their brand of Christianity over the other religions.� 

The ACLU was fully aware of all the other �pride� trademarks I had
listed in my documents. If a �pride� trademark had been turned down
for any group of people, other than whites, the ACLU would be in court
screaming �Discrimination by the United States Government!�