Pam Geller, proprietor of the Atlas Shrugs web log, and founder and director of the American Freedom Defense Initiative, applied to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to register the trademark “Stop the Islamisation of America.”
The USPTO reviewing attorney rejected the application in an “Office Action” based on the following analysis: (1) “Islamisation” means becoming “Islamic” and (2) “Stop” suggests there is reason to stop Islam simply and Muslims qua Muslims. Thus, the trademark, ruled the “Office Action”, disparaged Muslims and linked them to terrorism.
The Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C., together with Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center, filed a Response (the first step in the administrative appeal process), which is attached above, together with the Index of Evidentiary Exhibits. The Exhibits are available at the links below. (The Response and Evidentiary Exhibits are also available at the USPTO website (at http://tmportal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow and can be accessed by plugging in the application no: 77940879.) While the Response is lengthy and the exhibits are weighty, they are important documents establishing a Position Paper for those who understand the threat from those who would insinuate Shariah into Western society overtly and by stealth, such as through Shariah-compliant finance.
Essentially, our Response on behalf of Ms. Geller is a cogent argument that Islamisation is NOT simply 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, the threat of Islamisation is the process of implementing Shariah into a society to convert the society to a Shariah-compliant Islamic state. We begin by showing the origination of the word to the Muslim Brotherhood, actually using their own documents. We then point to how the professional and academic literature uses the word.
Bottom line: Stopping Islamisation and linking this doctrine to terrorism does not implicate good, patriotic, loyal Muslim Americans only those who seek the demise of our constitutional Republic.
We await the USPTO’s response.
NB: We previously represented Ms. Geller and Robert Spencer when the Miami-Dade County Transit authority first approved and then removed advertising on transit buses paid for by the American Freedom Defense Initiatve. You can read about our successful defense of Ms. Geller’s and Mr. Spencer’s First Amendment rights here.
We have also sued the Detroit-based, Michigan State transportation agency SMART for refusing to run Ms. Geller’s and Mr. Spencer’s ads on Detroit-area buses in federal court. We have conducted an evidentiary hearing before federal District Court Judge Denise Page Hood on the matter and are awaiting her decision on our motion for preliminary injunction. Once that decision comes down, we will report it here.
Ex. 1(a), Ex. 1(b), Ex. 1(c), Ex. 1(d), Ex. 1(e), Ex. 1(f), Ex. 1(g), Ex. 1(h), Ex. 1(i), Ex. 1(j), Ex. 1(k), Ex. 1(l), Ex. 1(m), Ex. 1 (n), Ex. 1(o), Ex. 2, Ex. 3(a), Ex. 3(b), Ex. 4(a), Ex. 4(b), Ex. 4(c), Ex. 4(d), Ex. 4(e), Ex. 4(f), Ex. 5, Ex. 6, Ex. 7, Ex. 8, Ex. 9, Ex. 10, Ex. 11, Ex. 12