We recently learned that TNOYF’s application for trademark protection for Islamic Rage Boy had been rejected, “because the proposed mark consists of or includes matters which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,” according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
While we’ve copyrighted IRB, we thought we’d take a shot at the full monty in an effort to protect the intellectual property. Unfortunately for us, we seem to have run into a brash young government lawyer who’s decided his job is to decide what is offensive and what is not.
Some of his more Darrowesque conclusions (NOTE: Non-italicized words are verbatim quotes from the rejection letter):
“The mark as a whole, stereotypes male Muslims as having an extremist and terrorist-like element (As opposed to the more common Muslim stereotype, a reticent fly-fisherman). Such a meaning is clearly offensive to all Muslims (translation: such a mark is clearly offensive to violent Muslim extremists and effeminate U.S. trademark attorneys. Tell us, you simpering paper-pusher: at what point will it be okay for us to poke fun at those who wish to enroll us in an involuntary “head relocation program?”). One site estimates that there are six to seven million Muslims in the United States (”One site”? I’m sorry, but should you really be Googling census figures? Don’t you work for the government?).A recent poll shows that 96% of American Muslims consider Islam an important factor in their daily lives’ (And another shows that 35% are OK with blowing up non-believers to demonstrate that importance. So if your carefully researched Google numbers are correct, that makes around 2.2 million or so practitioners of the religion of peace who don’t give a flying falafel whether or not you are trying to protect their delicate religious sensibilities; they’ll be happy to see you blown up just the same.).
The word portion of applicant’s mark combines the terms “Islamic”, “Rage”, and “Boy.” (Tell me, do you have a sign on your desk that reads: “Your tax dollars hard at work.”?)The word “rage” means: (1) “a violent and uncontrolled anger”, (2) “a fit of violent wrath”; and (3) “a violent action.” The word “Islam” means “peace, the surrendering of oneself to God” (I know. We are continuously stumped by the incongruency these fellows show as well.) Thus, viewed together (I must say that I love the way you deftly weave these threads together, creating a legal tapestry that promises to delight), Islamic rage conjures up the image of violent Muslim extremists (every time I read your words, my brain vomits just a little bit inside of my skull.). Associating Muslims with the imagery of extreme violence would be offensive not only to Muslims, but also to the entire American public (as members of the American public, we wanted to thank you for informing us that we are in fact offended. Now, let me make sure I understand the rest of your carefully honed legalese: You are upset that male Muslims are being associated with extreme violence? What is your stance on peanut butter being associated with jelly?). Indeed, Al-Qaeda’s second in command Ayman al-Zawahri threatened Americans by stating “You are facing the Islamic rage“ (if you insist on making our points for us, the least you could do is approve the trademark.). Here, applicant’s mark essentially creates that very offensive image of grouping all Muslims as terrorists (are you responding to our request for the trademark of “Islamic Rage Boy” or the lesser known “Islamic ‘Every Single Muslim Is A Bloodthirsty Killer’ Rage Boy”? Because we withdrew that one last year.). Indeed (again with the “indeed”, I think you might be hearing from Glenn Reynolds’ attorney.) there are millions of Muslims the world over who are living peaceful lives and have a great love of their religion (and there are a great many people - Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus et al- who are no longer living because of the fascist beliefs and murderous acts of Muslim extremists. Tell me again why we can’t make fun of them?). Accordingly, it is wholly inaccurate and offensive to label all male Muslims as being extremists (fair enough, but based on my experience so far it seems perfectly reasonable to label all patent attorneys “politically-correct, mincing douchebags”) .
The offensive nature of applicant’s mark is further augmented in light of America’s post 9/11 environment (I bet you are a scream at parties). Viewed in this context, applicant’s mark further offends Muslim males by equating ordinary male Muslims with violent and extreme actions (hey, are you the guy that pushed for elderly white ladies and toddlers to be strip-searched at the airport?). One Muslim was described as being “hesitant to perpetuate the stereotype of an extremist Muslim” (so he took the suicide belt off?). Another attached article also states that “Muslims fear they are the victims of overzealous investigators (preach on brother. I too am pretty sick and tired of reading all of the “Another innocent Muslim beaten to death by Christian extremists” headlines.) who buy into negative stereotypes that depict people of Islamic faith as extremists.” (Hey, no fair. You didn’t tell us that we could attach articles in support of our case!).
Returning to applicant’s mark, ISLAMIC RAGE BOY consists of matter that perpetuates negative stereotypes of male Muslims. Specifically, applicant’s mark refers to Islam as a faith of violent extremists (I know, but “Amish Rage Lad” and “The Bloodthirsty Buddhist Mauler” just didn’t ring true for us.). As one American has said, “it’s not fair to apply such a negative stereotype to all Muslims.” (Well, if one American said it, that changes everything).
Taking into consideration the term “boy” in applicant’s mark (he’s going in for the death blow now) further increases the offensive meaning of the said mark. The use of the term “boy” in applicant’s mark is set below a picture of a yelling man (we tried to put it sideways across his taint, but our rudimentary Photo Shop skills prohibited this). In this context, “boy” is “offensive” and means “a male servant” (or just a hairy adolescent with a squeaky voice.). Labeling Islamic men as “boys” is not only demeaning, but also belittles them (you forgot “mocks” and ”emasculates”).
One final point, the intent of applicant is not relevant to a disparagement inquiry (Translation: My noble work is done here, do not question me peasants.)
Accordingly, the proposed mark is refused registration under Section 2(a).
(P.S. Be sure to kill me last, Mr. Bin Laden.)
9/12/2007: UPDATE 1
Hot Air discovered that EvilChristians is a registered trademark.
9/12/2007: UPDATE 2
Many requests for the acutal rejection document, so here are the relevant pages. If you want all the attachments, you need some new hobbies, but shoot me an email (potfry@aol.com).
Click to enlarge.
Subscribe
