SIOA TRADEMARK LAWSUIT: Position Paper on Fighting Sharia (Islamic Law)

As you may recall, I applied for a trademark registration for SIOA. It was rejected (here) because the trademark office defined “Islamisation” to mean “Islamic” and said “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 sharia (Islamic law) has infected American rule of law every which way you can imagine, and those you can't.

I engaged David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise of the Thomas More Law Center to pursue this matter legally. Once again, these legal warriors did not hesitate to take the case pro-bono. They have filed the following response (first step in the administrative appeal process). The whole thing (exhibits and all) is available at the trademark website (and by then typing in the application no: 77940879).

This position paper is timely and necessary, especially now with advancing sharia. This position paper is the template for our side, the side of freedom.

David Yerushalmi explains, "Essentially, what they do is  make the very cogent argument that Islamisation is NOT simply a conversion of an individual or even a whole society to the religion of Islam or being even 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. The paper begins by showing the connection 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 our constitutional Republic’s demise."

Here is the entire document:
Download EnceLetterreResponsetoTrademarkRegistrationRefusal_Final

Law Offices of David Yerushalmi, P.C. 
Sioa sharia

Washington, D.C.
David Yerushalmi: Licensed in Washington, D.C., New York, California & Arizona
Of Counsel to the Institute for Advanced Strategic & Political Studies
General Counsel to the Center for Security Policy
July 26, 2010
Maria-Victoria Suarez
Trademark Attorney
Law Office 102
571-272-9264 FILED via TEAS (courtesy copy via email)

Re: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark
Application Refusal

Dear Ms. Suarez:
I am legal counsel to the applicant, Pamela Geller, regarding the trademark application
referenced above. Please consider this letter and its exhibits as evidentiary support of my
client’s Response to Office Action Trademark Application Refusal filed via TEAS.
Specifically, my client objects to USPTO’s Office Action refusal to register (“Office
Action”) the trademark “Stop the Islamisation of America” (“SIOA”) on the grounds that
it violates 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), and specifically that the trademark “includes matter
which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs or
national symbols.”1 Even more particularly, my client objects and responds to the Office
Action refusal to register the trademark on the grounds that the trademark “consists of
1 Unless otherwise noted, all quotations are quotes from the Office Action available
online here.
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 2 of 14
matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute Muslims and the Islamic
The Office Action refusal to register my client’s trademark predicates its ruling on two
grounds: (1) that the meaning of the word ‘Islamisation’ combined with the word ‘Stop’
refers to Muslims in a disparaging manner because by definition it implies that
conversion or conformity to Islam is something that needs to be stopped or caused to
cease; and (2) that my client’s trademark, which identifies informational services (i.e.,
“providing information regarding understanding and preventing terrorism”), “implies that
Islam is associated with violence and threats.”
My client objects to these two grounds for the following reasons: (1) the Office Action
improperly and too generally defines ‘Islamisation’ as referring to Muslims and Islam;
(2) the Office Action fails to identify what specific group of Muslims would be
disparaged by the trademark; (3) there is no showing that terrorism is not in fact
associated with ‘Islamisation’; and (4) refusal to grant the trademark is a violation of my
client’s right to Free Speech guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution.
The Office Action premises its refusal to register based upon the following faulty
Premise 1: ‘Islamisation’ refers to converting to Islam or becoming more
Premise 2: ‘Islam’ and ‘Islamic’ refer to Muslims.
Premise 3: ‘Stop’ disparages that which it seeks to render inactive.
Proposition: ‘Stop the Islamisation of America’ (“SIOA”) disparages Muslims.
The Office Action then applies the proposition of its syllogism to draw the conclusion
that because (a) SIOA provides services relating to information of and about terrorism,
then (b) SIOA links Muslims qua Muslims to terrorism.
First, the Office Action’s proposition that SIOA disparages Muslims, and its further
conclusion that SIOA links Muslims qua Muslims to terrorism, both flow from the first
premise which is patently false. ‘Islamisation’ does not refer to an individual or even a
society simply converting to the faith of Islam or even becoming more Islamic. The
Office Action, in defining ‘Islamisation’ as merely the conversion to Islam or becoming
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 3 of 14
more Islamic, has improperly relied upon an online dictionary called (see
Office Action Attachments 1-3). The problem with using this online dictionary definition
is twofold: (1) the definition does not properly characterize how Muslims
themselves use the word ‘Islamisation,’ nor does it describe how professional and
academics in the relevant disciplines use the word; and (2) The Office Action ignores the
dominant and prevailing meaning of the term, which is actually provided by as a second meaning. This alternative definition is closer to how
Muslims use the word and how relevant professionals and academics apply the word in
the literature of their respective disciplines. Thus, recognizes that the
word can mean “To cause to conform to Islamic law2 or precepts.” (emphasis added.)
(See Office Action Attachment 2.) But even this definition is woefully inadequate
because ‘Islamisation’ does not just mean “to cause to conform to [Shariah],” but
includes the entire politicalization of Shariah so that it controls all aspects of political,
social, economic, and religious life.
Formally, the proper and widely understood definition of ‘Islamisation’ (alternatively
spelled ‘Islamization’) is the political movement prevalent in a society or societal unit
which seeks to embrace a political doctrine that calls for the application of Shariah (i.e.,
Islamic law) as the supreme law of the society. While Islamisation and the call to create
a Shariah-adherent political order does include the call to convert non-Muslims, that is
not what marks Islamisation as a political and social order, and it is not how Muslims
themselves understand the word, nor is it how professionals and academics in the
relevant disciplines use the word.
Rather, Islamisation is specifically the politicization of a Muslim’s religious faith in that
Shariah, in its classic and extant form, demands that a society’s laws must all be
predicated upon and subservient to Shariah and its legal jurisprudence called fiqh.
Islamisation even in its “moderate” form demands that no secular law may contradict any
Shariah dictate. The prototypical examples of this form of Islamisation are the
constitutional or legal provisions in Muslim-dominated countries that include a “Shariahsupremacy”
clause providing that no secular law passed by the political branches may
contradict Shariah.
In short, the Islamisation of a society is the conversion to a theocratic political order
organized and enforced by the dictates of Shariah. Per Shariah, there is no possibili
ty of
a “separation of mosque and state.” Shariah applies to all political, social, religious, and
military institutions within a society that has undergone Islamisation.
2 Islamic law is Shariah. Shariah, formally, is both Islamic law and Islamic
jurisprudence. For a thorough discussion of Shariah, see David Yerushalmi, “Shari’ah’s
‘Black Box’: Civil Liability and Criminal Exposure Surrounding Shari’ah-Compliant
Finance,” 2008 UTAH L. REV. 1019, 1024-1032, attached hereto at Exhibit 4(a).

Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 4 of 14
Source authorities:
[1] See generally source authorities listed under §§ II.A and II.B.(1)-(2).
[2] One of the notable modern examples of Islamisation occurred in Pakistan after
that country gained its independence from Britain. Pakistan is one of the better examples
of the process of Islamisation as a purposeful political movement to institute Shariah as
the law of the land and to convert the secular state to a state ordered and maintained by
Shariah. In contrast, while it is true that Iran also experienced a thorough-going
Islamisation after the Iranian revolution of 1979 that saw the secular Shah deposed, this
process was far more abrupt and radical than is typically envisioned by the advocates of
Islamisation. The Pakistani example is illustrated in a thorough doctoral dissertation
submitted by Tanveer Khalid, at the University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan (Oct.
2004), attached hereto as Exhibits 1(a)-(o). The great proponent of Pakistan’s
Islamisation during its peak period (1977-1988) was General Zia Ul-Haque. As the
Pakistani researcher noted at p. 228 of his dissertation: “The ultimate goal [of Zia’s
Islamisation plan] was to make SHARIAH the basis of all law in Pakistan.” (Ex. 1(k).)
A. Origin of the Use of the Word ‘Islamisation.’
The word ‘Islamisation’ is closely linked to the terms ‘Islamist’ and ‘Islamism.’ These
terms were developed and popularized by leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, which
originated in Egypt in the 1930s and which has spread throughout the Muslim world,
including to and among Muslims living in Europe and the United States. The Muslim
Brotherhood’s founding purpose was an opposition to the Westernization of the Arab
nation-states mostly created after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The
founders of the Muslim Brotherhood specifically lamented the destruction of the Islamic
empire that had lasted in some form or another for 1200 years where Islam was not just a
religious faith but a political and social order implemented through political, social,
military, and religious institutions. The principle purpose of the Muslim Brotherhood
was to create political and social movements among Muslims in Muslim and non-Muslim
societies in an effort to recreate the Islamic Empire known as the Caliphate through a
staged process called Islamisation.
Source authorities:
[1] Written Testimony of Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow and Director of Eurasian
Policy, Hudson Institute, before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, during the hearing on the “Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism
and Efforts to Counter It” (hereinafter “Hearing”), attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
[2] ‘‘Report on the Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It:
The Muslim Brotherhood,’’ by Steven Emerson, Executive Director, Investigative
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 5 of 14
Project on Terrorism, submitted for the Record of the Hearing by Senator Coburn and
made a part of the Record as an Appendix at 102-118. The entire Transcript of the
Record of the Hearing (“Record”) is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
[3] Zeyno Baran, “The Muslim Brotherhood’s U.S. Network,” submitted for the
Record of the Hearing by Zeyno Baran and made a part of the Record as an Appendix at
119-136 at Exhibit 3.
[4] Post-Hearing Questions for the Record submitted by Senator Coburn to Zeyno
Baran, made a part of the Record as an Appendix at 140-143 at Exhibits 3(a)-(b).
[5] Continuing Legal Education seminar entitled, “Shariah-Compliant Finance:
Benign or Benevolent,” and downloadable course materials available online at
finance–disclosure–seminar-for-online-viewing-b9-p1.html and attached
hereto at Exhibits 4(a)-(f).
B. The Use of the Term ‘Islamisation.’
1. Among Muslims.
The 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. Specifically relevant to how contemporary U.S. Muslims
understand the term ‘Islamisation’ (as opposed to early-20th century Muslim
Brotherhood founders from the Middle East) is a theoretical document entitled, “The
Process of Islamization,” by Dr. Jaafar Sheikh Idris, a well-respected Shariah scholar.
His paper on the process of Islamisation was originally published in 1976 by the Islamic
Society of North America (“ISNA”) and later published online at The paper was so well-received
that it was then published in 1977 by the Muslim Students Association of the U.S. and
Canada (“MSA”) and was reprinted on at least four occasions through 1983. The MSA
subsequently published the paper online at
While both ISNA and MSA have documented ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, both
organizations profess allegiance to the U.S. Constitution and representative government.
Dr. Idris’s paper begins the discussion of the “Process of Islamization” with the
unequivocal statement that Islamisation is not fundamentally about proselytizing or
converting non-Muslims to a common spiritual religious faith, but rather a political
movement to establish a political order where all aspects of government, society,
economics, and culture are founded upon and guided by Islamic teachings. The only
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 6 of 14
Islamic teachings that reach all of these myriad political and social institutions is
Shariah—Islamic law. Thus, he begins:
The aim of the Islamic movement is to bring about somewhere in the
world a new society wholeheartedly committed to the teachings of Islam
in their totality and striving to abide by those teachings in its government,
political, economic and social organizations, its relation with other states,
its educational system and moral values and all other aspects of its way of
Our organized and gradual effort which shall culminate in the realization
of that society is the process of Islamization.
The importance of creating an Islamic state bound by Islamic law is central to
Islamisation. Dr. Idris writes:
Fundamental Importance of the Islamic State.
Turning to the Prophets sira [biography], it is necessary to justify the
statement that I have just made about his objective of an Islamic state. The
Prophet’s aim as a messenger of God was to convey His message to His
servants. This is true, but it is also true that the attempt to create such an
Islamic state is an important part of that message. It has been said that had
it been one of his aims to create such a state the Prophet would not have
turned down the Meccan offer of kingship. The prophet did reject that
offer, but he did so because its acceptance would not have made him the
head of a Muslim state. He would have become king of a people who did
not even be
lieve in his Message, and who in fact offered him status as a
bribe to abstain from propagating it. A man, who accepted such an offer
would not be a genuine Prophet but a man possessed by lust for power,
who would be using the claim to prophethood only as a means to gratify
that desire.
The fact that the Prophet was desirous of creating a Muslim state comes
out clearly in the fact that besides his attempt to convert individuals to the
new faith he was doing his best to win over the power of an organized and
independent community to be the stronghold of this faith.
Two points become clear from this particular publication—specifically, from the
publication in context of its publication by ISNA and MSA—and from any open source
search for other Muslim references to Islamisation. First, the term ‘Islamisation’ does
not mean simply a religious or even a cultural turn toward Islamic piety or culture.
Rather, it has a specific and discreet meaning which describes a process advocated by the
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 7 of 14
Muslim Brotherhood whereby societies which include Muslims are converted to political
orders adherent to, and organized by, the Islamic teachings of Shariah. In other words,
otherwise non-Shariah-compliant states are converted into Shariah-compliant Islamic
Second, law abiding and civilly responsible Muslim Americans do not advocate the
Islamisation of the U.S. because they understand that would mean that the U.S.
Constitution is no longer the supreme law of the land and the First Amendment’s
protection of religious freedom and prohibition against the establishment of a government
religion would no longer be valid. This is precisely why ISNA and MSA—even though
they dutifully published this document—go to great lengths on their English-based
websites to present their respective organizations as “mainstream” and civilly responsible
and do not publicly embrace Islamisation. In short, law abiding, patriotic, civilly
responsible Muslim Americans do not embrace the Islamisation of America and would
not be disparaged by a campaign to stop it. Thus, the SIOA trademark is not referencing
Islam simply or Muslims qua Muslims. If there is a group referenced by the trademark
and proffered services, it would be the Muslim Brotherhood advocates who seek the
destruction of the United States as a constitutional Republic based upon a representative
government where no specific religion has government sanction over any other.
Source authorities:
[1] Jaafar Sheikh Idris, “The Process of Islamization,” (1976), attached hereto as
Exhibit 5.
[2] Continuing Legal Education seminar entitled, “Shariah-Compliant Finance:
Benign or Benevolent,” and downloadable course materials available online at
finance–disclosure–seminar-for-online-viewing-b9-p1.html and are attached
at Exhibit 4(a)-(f).
[3] On ISNA’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, see the Investigative Project on
Terrorism’s Dossier on ISNA, attached hereto as Exhibit 6.
[4] On MSA’s ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, see the Discover The
Networks.Org Dossier on MSA, attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
[5] Because ISNA and MSA attempt to hold their respective organizations out as
mainstream Muslim organizations, they distance themselves from the Muslim
Brotherhood and appear on their respective English-based web sites to reject the
Islamisation doctrine expressed by Dr. Idris and espoused generally by the Muslim
Brotherhood. See, e.g., ISNA’s web-based “ISNA Statement of Position: Who We Are
and What We Believe,” available online at
to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 8 of 14
releases/isna-statement-of-position-who-we-are-and-what-we-believe.aspx and attached
hereto as Exhibit 8. (MSA founded ISNA and remains affiliated. See MSA’s web-based
“FAQs,” available online at and attached hereto
as Exhibit 9. This distancing by these two Muslim Brotherhood-linked organizations is
evidence that to the extent they wish to present themselves as “mainstream” and loyal to
this country and the Constitution, they must appear not to be advocating for Islamisation.
In other words, if ISNA and MSA are to be acceptable to those law abiding and loyal
Muslims they seek to influence, they cannot appear to be on the side of those who would
eliminate the Constitution and its guarantees of religious freedom. This once again
makes the point that Islamisation is not an affront or disparaging of Islam simply or of
Muslim Americans qua Muslims. The SIOA trademark and associated services are in
fact aligned and in concert with those Muslim and non-Muslim Americans who are law
abiding, loyal citizens who cherish our freedoms under the Constitution.
2. The Use of ‘Islamisation’ in the Professional and Academic
Even a cursory review of the professional and academic literature demonstrates the point
that American Muslims would not be disparaged by the advocacy against ‘Islamisation’
because ‘Islamisation’ is understood by all the professionals and academics who use it as
a term referring to the destructive efforts by those Shariah-advocates typically referred to
as Islamists working through politics and terrorism to impose a Shariah-based political
order either on a specific targeted society or on the world as a whole. In subsection 1.
immediately above, we showed that lay Muslims themselves understand ‘Islamisation’ as
a political movement to create an Islamic state, contrary to the laws of the United States.
From the lay Muslim’s perspective, assuming a law abiding, loyal fellow citizen, the call
to “Stop the Islamisation of America” would be laudatory, not disparaging. This section
is designed to set forth overwhelmingly the evidence that the consensus among
academics and professionals is likewise that Islamisation is not limited to spiritual
conversions or mere Islamic piety or even acculturation as suggested by the Office
Action, but rather it is understood universally as a political movement, oftentimes
violent, to impose Shariah. A review of the literature also demonstrates that the
Islamisation of a country is viewed unanimously by the professionals and academics who
write on the subject as a destructive social, political, and legal phenomenon. As such, the
call to “Stop” such a process would not and should not disparage any law abiding, civic
minded, loyal citizen of the United States.
Attached as Exhibit 10 is a print-out of a Lexis search of all 246 law review articles
published at any time which include the word ‘Islamisation’ or its alternative spelling
‘Islamization.’ A review of these articles—or even a review of any random selection of
these articles—illustrates that ‘Islamisation’ refers to a destructive and violent political
process driven by Shariah’s dictates to establish a political order governed by Shariah.
To make this point demonstratively, attached as Exhibit 11 are the actual excerpts
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 9 of 14
referencing ‘Islamisation’ or ‘Islamization’ as they appear in context in every
article cited in the Lexis search at Exhibit 10. The context is irrefutable. Professionals
and academics use the term ‘Islamisation’ to refer to a destructive and violent movement
to impose Shariah as the law of the land often at the expense of women and religious
The Office Action fails to properly apply the test for refusing to register the applicant’s
trademark on the grounds that it is disparaging to Muslims and violates § 2(a) of the
Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)). Specifically, the analysis utilized in the Office
Action fails to adhere to the requirements set out in detail in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo,
284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Harjo II”). The test accepted by the court in Harjo
II as the governing analysis was the test set out by the Trial Trademark and Appeal Board
(“TTAB”) in the earlier Harjo ruling (Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 1999 TTAB LEXIS
181, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705, 1749 (T.T.A.B. 1999) ("Harjo I"). That test is and remains as
Our analysis is essentially a two-step process in which we ask, first: What
is the meaning of the matter in question, as it appears in the marks and as
those marks are used in connection with the services identified in the
registrations? Second, we ask: Is this meaning one that may disparage
Native Americans? As previously stated, both questions are to be
answered as of the dates of registration of the marks herein.
Harjo II, 284 F. Supp. 2d at 125 (quoting Harjo I at 50 U.S.P.Q. 2d at 1741)
At a threshold level, the Office Action has failed to properly ascertain “the meaning of
the matter in question” because it applies that part of an online definition of
‘Islamisation’ that has no meaning or relevance to Muslims who use the word or know of
its meaning. Moreover, the definition used by the Office Action is not the relevant
definition for the word used by academics and professionals in the context of their
professional publications. By limiting the word artificially and incorrectly to
“convert[ing] to Islam or [of] bring[ing] into a state of harmony or conformity with the
principles and teachings of Islam; giv[ing] an Islamic character or identity to,” the Office
Action broadens the meaning and context of the word beyond recognition. As the
evidence above demonstrates, ‘Islamisation’ refers to a far more discreet political process
than merely conversions and bringing the matter into harmony with nondescript Islamic
principles and teachings.
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 10 of 14
Rather, ‘Islamisation’ refers to a historically documented political process whereby entire
societies are brought within the guidance and control of Shariah. It is the theocratization
of a political order guided in all matters by the Islamic law and jurisprudence of Shariah.
Having incorrectly defined ‘Islamisation’ to effectively mean ‘Islamic,’ the Office Action
concludes, understandably (yet incorrectly) so, that “Stop the Islamisation of America”
suggests that Islam and Muslims simply must be stopped. But this is a false conclusion
of the meaning of “Stop the Islamisation of America,” and it is false because the
syllogism begins with a false premise upon which the conclusion rests. As noted above,
precisely because the first premise incorrectly defines ‘Islamisation’ to mean anything of
and pertaining to Islam and Muslims, it fails to capture the specific meaning and intent of
the trademark and casts a net far too broad.
The trademark “Stop the Islamisation of America” refers to the fact that the United States
is a constitutional Republic founded in large measure on the freedom to worship as one
chooses and on the prohibition of establishing a state-sanctioned religion to the detriment
of others. Shariah and the political process of ‘Islamisation’ violate both of these
constitutional tenets, which are fundamental to our constitutional Republic.
Having determined the proper, more relevant definition of ‘Islamisation,’ we come to the
second prong of the disparagement test: are law abiding, loyal Muslim Americans—who
presumably do not wish to see the Constitution replaced by Shariah any more than any
other loyal American citizens—likely to be disparaged by a trademark and services
seeking to stop the “Islamisation of America”? The question of course answers itself—
And, this refinement of the meaning of ‘Islamisation,’ which in turn leads to the proper
meaning of the word relative to Muslim Americans as Muslims simply and as loyal
Americans more specifically, points to the other defect in the Office Action’s analysis.
Under the standards enunciated by Harjo I and II, the analysis provided by the Office
Action, which references only disparate news articles and opeds ambiguously as
attachments, fails to properly identify which group of Muslim Americans would take
umbrage from and be disparaged by the trademark and associated services, which merely
seek to preserve all Americans’ religious liberty. Thus, in Harjo II, the court set out
these criteria for clearly identifying the “disparaged” group:
“[I]t is only logical that in deciding whether the matter may be disparaging
we look, not to American society as a whole, . . . but to the views of the
referenced group.” [Harjo I] at 1739. The views of the referenced group,
the Board concluded, are “reasonably determined by the views of a
substantial composite thereof.” Id. (citing In re Hines, 31 U.S.P.Q.2d
1685, 1688 (T.T.A.B. 1994), vacated on other grounds 32 U.S.P.Q.2d
1376 (T.T.A.B. 1994)). To determine the referenced group, the TTAB
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 11 of 14
adopted the test from In re Hines, which looks to “the perceptions of
‘those referred to, identified or implicated in some recognizable manner
by the involved mark.’” [Harjo I], 50 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1740 (quoting Hines,
31 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1688) (“In determining whether or not a mark is
disparaging, the perceptions of the general public are irrelevant. Rather,
because the portion of section 2(a) proscribing disparaging marks targets
certain persons, institutions or beliefs, only the perceptions of those
referred to, identified or implicated in some recognizable manner by the
involved mark are relevant to this determination.”).
Harjo II at 124. Because the Office Action improperly generalized and broadened the
meaning of ‘Islamisation’ beyond its actual meaning of a political process bent on
destroying American constitutional government through the implantation of Shariah, the
Office Action necessarily failed to come to terms with the relevant “referenced group.”
Finally, and to avoid any doubt, assuming Shariah-adherents of the Islamic faith who
seek to implement the Islamist goal of Islamisation make up the relevant “referenced
group,” it should be obvious from the evidence provided above that the “Stop the
Islamisation of America” trademark and associated services do not “disparage” this
group. As the court held in Harjo II, a trademark disparages if it “may ‘dishonor by
comparison with what is inferior, slight, deprecate, degrade, or affect or injure by unjust
comparison.’” Harj
o II at 124 (quoting Harjo I at 1737). As must be obvious, a
trademark such as “Stop the Islamisation of America” and associated services do not
dishonor, slight, deprecate, or degrade those Islamists who seek to implement
Islamisation because the Islamist members of the referenced group already know that the
Constitution itself and the laws of the United States work to “Stop the Islamisation of
America.” If my client’s trademark disparages this group, it must be that the Constitution
and the very foundation of this country do as well. And, it can also be asserted with
confidence that my client’s trademark does not and cannot “affect or injure by unjust
comparison” a group of Islamists who seek to undermine and supplant the Constitution.
What is relevant here is a Muslim Brotherhood document authored by and belonging to
the referenced group of Shariah-adherent Islamists who make up the referenced group,
which was uncovered and admitted into evidence by the U.S. Attorney prosecuting
members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood for conspiracy to fundraise in the United
States for jihad abroad. The trial resulted in convictions for all five Muslim Brotherhood
defendants and sentences ranging from 15 years to 65 years. See, generally, United States
v. Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (“HLF) et al., 3:04-cr-00240-P
(N.D. Texas)3; see also the Department of Justice sentencing press release available
online at and attached hereto as
3 Court documents for the trial available at:
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 12 of 14
Exhibit 12. During the lengthy pre-indictment investigation, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation uncovered a secret memorandum that sought to establish the Muslim
Brotherhood goals in the United States. The memorandum lays out means and methods
for implementing the organization’s Islamisation goals. Noteworthy, is this portion:
The process of settlement is a ‘Civilization-Jihadist Process’ with all the
word means. The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that
their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and
destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its
miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is
eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other
In other words, the Shariah-advocates of Islamisation know in advance of the SIOA
trademark that they must seek to “sabotage” Western civilization through stealth because
the constitutions and laws seeking to protect Western liberties opposes Islamisation.
Given these expressed goals and methods, it is not reasonable to assume that the
trademark “Stop the Islamisation of America” would likely “affect or injure” this group
by “unjust comparison.”
Given the evidence and analysis above, it is clear that the Office Action incorrectly
concludes that my client’s trademark is meant to suggest (even remotely) that Islam
simply or Muslims qua Muslims are responsible for, involved with, or even supportive
of, Islamic terrorism. What should now be clear is that the referenced group with the
expressed or implied connection to terrorism are those Islamists, such as the Muslim
Brotherhood groups, who seek to implement Islamisation in this country and abroad.
Indeed, the federal trial of the Holy Land Foundation defendants established “beyond a
reasonable doubt” that the Muslim Brotherhood has set up operations in the United States
both to fundraise for violent jihad abroad and to “sabotage” the Homeland by
undermining the Constitution and its liberties. The trademark “Stop the Islamisation of
America” affects and impugns only this group, but does no more than assert the
supremacy of the Constitution and draw proven links between the Shariah-adherent
Islamists and Islamic terrorism. The Office Action, having incorrectly defined
‘Islamisation,’ does not provide any evidence that the properly referenced group—
consisting of Shariah-adherents promoting Islamisation—is not in fact linked to
4 The full document is available online at Available on line at and
attached hereto as Exhibit 4(e).
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 13 of 14
The Office Action refusal to grant the trademark violates my client’s free speech rights
under the First Amendment to the Constitution. Specifically, Congress has, through the
Lanham Act, established a public forum for those who seek to register a trademark. See,
e.g., Redmond v. Jockey Club, 244 Fed. Appx. 663, 668 (6th Cir. Ky. 2007) (explaining
that a horse registry was a limited public forum); see generally Cornelius v. NAACP
Legal Def. & Educ. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985) (“The [Supreme] Court has adopted
a forum analysis as a means of determining when the Government’s interest in limiting
the use of its property to its intended purpose outweighs the interest of those wishing to
use the property for [expressive] purposes.”). There is no doubt that my client’s
trademark is protected speech under the First Amendment, either as commercial speech
or as political speech. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 913 (1982)
(recognizing “that expression on public issues ‘has always rested on the highest rung of
the hierarchy of First Amendment values’” and that “‘[Speech] concerning public affairs
is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government’”) (citations omitted).
By restricting my client’s speech based upon some perceived, yet undocumented harm to
some ambiguous group’s reputation based upon the content and viewpoint of the speech,
the USPTO is engaging in an unlawful and unconstitutional infringement of my client’s
free speech rights. Indeed, the viewpoint-based restrictions applied here are
unconstitutional even in a nonpublic forum. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Local
Educators, 460 U.S. 37, 46 (1983) (holding that in a nonpublic forum, the government
“may reserve the forum for its intended purposes, communicative or otherwise, as long as
the regulation on speech is reasonable and not an effort to suppress expression merely
because public officials oppose the speaker’s view”); see also, Nieto v. Flatau, No. 7:08-
cv-185H(2), 2010 U.S. Dist. Lexis 55938 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2010) (holding that a
speech restriction on a military base, a nonpublic forum, was viewpoint based as applied
to speech that was perceived to be anti-Islam in violation of the First Amendment). As
such, the Office Action’s refusal to register the trademark is unconstitutional under any
forum analysis.
Letter to Maria-Victoria Suarez, Trademark Attorney
July 26, 2010
Subject: Trademark Application No. 77/940879; Response to Office Action Trademark Application
Page 14 of 14
For the foregoing reasons, we ask that you reverse the Office Action’s refusal to
register the trademark and to take any an
d all steps to register the trademark
Respectfully submitted,
David Yerushalmi, Esq.

Have a tip we should know? Your anonymity is NEVER compromised. Email

The Truth Must be Told

Your contribution supports independent journalism

Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.

Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.

Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.

Please contribute here.


Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.

Pin It on Pinterest