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!” Center for Individual Rights (CIR)
provides assistance My next step was to seek help from the Center for
Individual Rights. They are the conservative response to the ACLU. They
are political opposites but much smaller than the ACLU. I corresponded
with the CIR through mail, email, and telephone conversations. In June
2005, the CIR politely and professionally declined my request for help,
but because of monetary, not ideological considerations. The CIR did help by putting my case on the
Federalist website, a conservative site where attorneys can take pro
bono cases. As of August 2005, I had not received any responses. You can help The First Amendment of the United States
Constitution guarantees the right of the people to “petition the
government for a redress of grievances.” If you disagree with the
decision of the USPTO in my case, please petition the government. 1. Send an email to the Commissioner of Trademarks 2. Send a letter to Lynne Beresford, Commissioner of Trademarks United States Patent and Trademark Office P. O. 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313—1451 3. Send copies of the is article to other people by
email or mail The Author Justin J. Moritz is my real name. I am a retired law
enforcement officer and have served as a city police officer, a county
deputy, a state special agent, and a training director. I hold
Associate, Bachelor’s, and Master’s degrees from three Minnesota
colleges.
(Posted on August 3, 2005)