Islam “Special” – No Criticism Allowed by Trademark Office and Court
Bill Quick

Deemed “disparaging,” anti-Muslim website denied trademark

Activist blogger Pamela Geller decries the decision against her proposed trademark as “unconstitutional.”

A federal appeals court is letting stand a decision denying a trademark to a website’s banner because it could be perceived as disparaging to Muslims.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a 2011 decision from the US Patent and Trademark Office against “Stop Islamization of America”—a decision raising constitutional concerns.

It wasn’t the first time trademark regulators enforced a little-referenced section of law that allowed them to refuse issuing a trademark if it disparages the “living or dead” or institutions, beliefs, or national symbols or places them in “contempt, or disrepute.”

I don’t see how this could possibly be constitutional.  Eugene Volokh agrees with me.  I hope that Geller and Spenser have the means to push this high enough to get it overturned.

Why does every organ of the Regulatory State seem to operate as a tyranny?

* * * * * * * * * * *

Check out my new bestseller, Lightning Fall: A Novel of Disaster. Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit.com says: “Bill Quick has authored a terrific thriller that is also an all too plausible warning. Highly recommended!” Available in Kindle e-book or trade paperback formats.

Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.

Comments

Islam “Special” – No Criticism Allowed by Trademark Office and Court — 2 Comments

  1. I don’t see how this could possibly be constitutional.

    As if that actually mattered anymore. We are-at best- one more Obama appointee to SCOTUS from such a ruling to become settled law. At which point, well, I guess the burning times will start earlier than I had previously thought.

    • Well, it depends on the appointee. If Ginsberg retires, the makeup of the court’s ideology doesn’t change–but the possibility of it moving rightward in the next several decades goes away.