Feds Rule “White Pride” Is “Offensive” and “Immoral”

Justin J. Moritz, AR News, August 2, 2005

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

[email protected]

2. Send a letter to

Lynne G. 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.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.

Comments are closed.