Matthew Beck

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2015

No. 85767380 (T.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2015)

Mailed: March 19, 2015

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________

Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
________

In re Matthew Beck
________

Serial No. 85767380
_______

Paulo A. De Almeida of Patel & Almeida for Matthew Beck.

John M. Gartner, Trademark Examining Attorney, Law Office 102 (Mitchell
Front, Managing Attorney).
_______

Before Seeherman, Cataldo and Hightower,
Administrative Trademark Judges.

Opinion by Cataldo, Administrative Trademark Judge:

Applicant, Matthew Beck, filed an application to register on the Principal
Register the mark PORNO JESUS in standard characters for the following
goods: “DVDs featuring music videos, adult themed content, glamour
photography, and adult entertainment; video recordings featuring music
videos, adult themed content, glamour photography, and adult
entertainment” in International Class 9.1 In response to the Examining

1 Application Serial No. 85767380 was filed on October 30, 2012, based upon
Applicant’s assertion of a bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce in
connection with the goods.
THIS OPINION IS
A PRECEDENT OF
THE TTAB
Serial No. 85767380

2
Attorney’s requirement, Applicant disclaimed “PORNO” apart from the mark
as shown.
The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration under Section
2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), of the Trademark Act on two grounds.
First, the Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that the
mark sought to be registered consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous
matter.
Second, the Examining Attorney refused registration on the ground that
the mark includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or
disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.
When the refusals were made final, Applicant appealed and filed a
request for reconsideration. When the Examining Attorney denied the
request for reconsideration, this appeal was resumed. Applicant and the
Examining Attorney filed main briefs on the issues under appeal and
Applicant filed a reply brief.2 We have considered the disparagement ground

2 Applicant attached portions of the evidentiary record to his appeal brief. Because
the entire record is readily available to the Board, such submission is duplicative
and unnecessary and is discouraged. See, e.g., In re Sela Products LLC, 107 USPQ2d
1580, 1584 (TTAB 2013) (“It is of far more utility to the Board for the applicant and
examining attorney to provide citations directly to the record and, when there are a
large number of attachments to an Office action or response, to the specific page
number where the attachment may be found.”).
Applicant also submitted for the first time with his appeal brief a dictionary
definition of “adultery,” along with a request that the Board take judicial notice
thereof. Applicant’s request for judicial notice is granted inasmuch as the Board may
take judicial notice of dictionary definitions including online definitions if the
dictionary is readily available and verifiable. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) § 704.12 (2014) and authorities cited therein. We
observe, nonetheless, that we did not rely upon this definition in making our
determination herein.
Serial No. 85767380

3
for refusal and find it correct and supported by the evidentiary record.
Accordingly, we need not reach the scandalousness ground for refusal.
Discussion:
The Examining Attorney argues that the mark PORNO JESUS may be
disparaging to Christian-Americans inasmuch as it links Jesus Christ with
pornography. Applicant argues that the Examining Attorney has failed to
meet his burden of demonstrating that PORNO JESUS is a disparaging term
under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act.
Evidence Submitted by the Examining Attorney and Applicant
In support of his argument that the mark PORNO JESUS may disparage
Christian-Americans, the Examining Attorney submitted with his March 7,
2013 Office Action numerous dictionary definitions and encyclopedia entries
regarding the terms comprising the mark.3 The following are illustrative.
• Porno: (Adjective Informal) pornographic;4
• Pornographic: (Adjective) showing or talking about sexual
activities in a very obvious way that is intended to make people
sexually excited.5
• Jesus: (Noun) the Jewish religious teacher whose life, death,
and resurrection as reported by the Evangelists are the basis of
the Christian message of salvation – called also Jesus Christ;6

3 The Examining Attorney submitted a “Taboo, Slang” definition of “Jesus” from the
“English Worldwide” database of Collinsdictionary.com rather than the “American”
database. We cannot determine whether this definition reflects American English
usage. As a result, we give this definition no consideration.
4 Macmillandictionary.com.
5 Id.
6 Merriam-webster.com.
Serial No. 85767380

4
• Jesus: (biographical name) Jesus of Nazareth; the Son of Mary,
source of the Christian religion & Saviour in the Christian
faith.7
• Christianity: major religion stemming from the life, teachings,
and death of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ, or the Anointed One
of God) in the 1st century AD. It has become the largest of the
world’s religions. Geographically the most widely diffused of all
faiths, it has a constituency of more than 2 billion believers.8
In addition, we take judicial notice of the following definition of
pornography: obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, especially
those having little or no artistic merit.9
With his September 14, 2013 response, Applicant submitted printed
copies of articles from various Internet sources discussing shifting views
among Christians on issues including pornography. In particular, Applicant
submitted a screenshot from the webpage televictim.com/christianporn, a
website devoted to disseminating and supporting Christian pornography, and
offering contemporary pornographic video productions marketed toward
Christians, showing only married couples who portray married couples in a
manner intended to be instructional, inspirational, and in conformance with
Christian beliefs. In addition, Applicant submitted copies of the following
third-party registrations:10
Reg. No. 3743882 HOOKERS FOR JESUS for “charitable
services, namely, organizing women’s groups to undertake

7 Id.
8 Britannica.com.
9 Dictionary.com Unabridged, based on The Random House Dictionary (2015).
10 Applicant also submitted an abandoned third-party application, but such an
application, even if live, has probative value only to show that it was filed.
Interpayment Services Ltd. v. Docters & Thiede, 66 USPQ2d 1463 (TTAB 2003).
Serial No. 85767380

5
projects which benefit the homeless, abused, at risk women and
women in transition and pain, while encouraging empowerment
among women of all ages and ethnicities”;

Reg. No. 4090135 for “entertainment
services, namely, an on-going series featuring religious
information provided through webcasts and cable television,
entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring
non-downloadable musical performances, musical videos, related
film clips, photographs, and other multimedia materials
featuring religious information, on-line journals, namely, blogs
featuring religious information”;

Reg. No. 3118307 JESUS FREAK for “men’s, women’s and
children’s clothing, namely, T-shirts, tank tops, sweatshirts,
sweatpants, sleepwear, bathing suits, pants, socks, shorts, hats,
caps”;

Reg. No. 4291551 THE DAY JESUS SPOKE HIP-HOP for
“entertainment services, namely, providing a web site featuring
photographic, audio, video and prose presentations in the field of
Christian living featuring Christian music; on-line journals,
namely, blogs featuring Christian living; entertainment
services, namely, providing podcasts in the field of Christian
living”’ and

Reg. No. 3469303 WHO WOULD JESUS SUE? for “printed
matter and publications, namely, books and bumper stickers in
the field of faith based advocacy.”

With his October 12, 2013 Final Office Action, the Examining Attorney
submitted evidence consisting of printed copies of webpages from various
Internet websites showing membership statistics for various Christian
denominations in the United States, as well as webpages, including the
following, which discuss the views of certain denominations toward
pornographic materials:
Serial No. 85767380

6
• Bpnews.net Baptist Press article from October 11, 2013
discussing a Southern Baptist Convention initiative seeking
commitments from 1 million men to live pornography free;
• Umsexualethics.com article discussing United Methodist Church
position that use of pornography in church programs, on church
premises or property by persons in a ministerial role is
considered sexual misconduct;
• Lds.org article defining pornography in a manner consistent
with the above dictionary definitions, discussing pornography
and indicating that members of the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints should avoid pornography and oppose its
production, distribution and use.
Applicant submitted with his April 7, 2014 request for reconsideration
Internet webpage evidence including an article from Wikipedia.org entitled
Religious Perspective on Jesus noting the following:
• Christianity views Jesus as the Christ or messiah;
• Islam views Jesus as Isa, one of God’s highest ranked and
beloved prophets;
• Baha’i Faith considers Jesus to be a manifestation of God; and
• Judaism recognizes Jesus as a man but not the messiah.
Legal Authorities
Registration of a mark consisting of matter which may disparage, inter
alia, “persons,” “institutions,” or “beliefs” is prohibited under Section 2(a) of
the Trademark Act. 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). To determine whether a proposed
mark is disparaging, the Board applies the following two-part test:
1) what is the likely meaning of the matter in question, taking
into account not only dictionary definitions, but also the
relationship of the matter to the other elements in the mark, the
nature of the goods or services, and the manner in which the
Serial No. 85767380

7
mark is used in the marketplace in connection with the goods or
services; and

2) if that meaning is found to refer to identifiable persons,
institutions, beliefs or national symbols, whether that meaning
may be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced
group.
In re Geller, 751 F.3d 1355, 1358, 110 USPQ2d 1867, 1869 (Fed. Cir. 2014); In
re Tam, 108 USPQ2d 1305 (TTAB 2013); In re Lebanese Arak Corp., 94
USPQ2d 1215, 1217 (TTAB 2010); In re Heeb Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1071,
1074 (TTAB 2008); In re Squaw Valley Development Co., 80 USPQ2d 1264,
1267 (TTAB 2006). The burden of proving that a mark is disparaging rests
with the USPTO. Squaw Valley, 80 USPQ2d at 1271. See also In re
Boulevard Entertainment, Inc., 334 F.3d 1336, 67 USPQ2d 1475, 1477 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (citing In re Mavety Group, Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 31 USPQ2d 1923
(Fed. Cir. 1994)).
Whether a proposed mark is disparaging must be determined from the
standpoint of a substantial composite of the referenced group (although not
necessarily a majority) in the context of contemporary attitudes. See In re
Geller, 110 USPQ2d at 1872; Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 USPQ2d
1080 (TTAB 2014); Squaw Valley, 80 USPQ2d at 1269; Harjo v. Pro-Football,
Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1758 (TTAB 1999), rev’d on other grounds, 284 F.
Supp. 2d 96, 68 USPQ2d 1225 (D.D.C. 2003).
The analysis of a mark subject to a refusal to register or inter partes claim
based on disparagement depends on the facts of the particular case, with the
result that the involved mark may be found to be, inter alia: (1) an innocuous
Serial No. 85767380

8
term that in the context of the goods or services is disparaging, Lebanese
Arak, 94 USPQ2d at 1223 (likely meaning of KHORAN is the Islamic holy
text and use for wine disparages religion and beliefs of Muslim-Americans);
or (2) a disparaging term that may have a nondisparaging meaning in a
specific context, Squaw Valley, 80 USPQ2d at 1282 (SQUAW when used
solely with ski-related goods and services means Squaw Valley ski resort
under the first part of the test); or (3) a term that is disparaging, regardless
of the applicant’s goods or services, In re Heeb Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1071
(TTAB 2008) (applicant’s good intentions and inoffensive goods and services
do not obviate finding that HEEB is disparaging to Jewish-Americans in
context of the goods and services; mixed opinion among members of the
referenced group does not erase the perception of a substantial composite who
find it disparaging).
Findings/Analysis

We must first determine, based on the evidence of record, the “likely
meaning” of the mark PORNO JESUS; and then, if there is a meaning that
invokes a group of persons, turn to consider whether that meaning may be
disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group.
What is the likely meaning?
There is no dispute that “Jesus” in Applicant’s mark refers to Jesus of
Nazareth, upon whom the Christian faith is based. Applicant acknowledges
this meaning, and does not assert any alternate meaning. Cf. In re Over Our
Serial No. 85767380

9
Heads Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1653 (TTAB 1990) (the mark MOONIES and design
with naked buttocks substituted for the letters “O” used for a doll that
“moons” would be perceived as indicating that the doll moons, rather than as
a reference to members of The Unification Church). We observe that the
meaning of “Jesus” in the context of Christianity is a commonly known fact.
In addition, the dictionary definitions excerpted above clearly establish that
“Jesus” describes Jesus of Nazareth, the source of the Christian religion.
Similarly, the evidence of record clearly establishes that “porno” describes
pornographic or sexually explicit materials that depict sexual activity in an
obvious manner. Applicant and the Examining Attorney also agree on this
meaning.
Thus, the likely meaning of the mark PORNO JESUS, taken as a whole,
is Jesus of Nazareth partaking of acts related to pornographic or sexually
explicit materials. We see no alternate meanings for the terms comprising
the PORNO JESUS mark that might lend a different meaning to the whole,
and Applicant offers none. We believe that this would be the meaning
ascribed to the mark no matter what the goods or services with which it is
used, but particularly so in connection with the goods identified in the
application. In this respect, it is like the mark HEEB, potentially disparaging
regardless of an applicant’s goods or services, actual use or intent.
Nonetheless, to be complete, we also consider the “manner in which the
mark is used in the marketplace in connection with the goods or services,”
Serial No. 85767380

10
Lebanese Arak, 94 USPQ2d at 1217. As identified in the involved application,
Applicant’s goods include DVDs and video recordings featuring, inter alia,
“adult themed content,” which Applicant acknowledges includes
“pornographic films.”11 Thus, it is clear that PORNO JESUS, used on or in
connection with the identified goods, would have the “likely meaning” of
Jesus Christ associated with pornographic acts and sexually explicit
materials.
Is the meaning of the mark one that may be disparaging to a
substantial composite of the referenced group?

Having determined the likely meaning of PORNO JESUS, we must now
determine whether the mark is disparaging to a substantial composite of the
referenced group. In this case, because “Jesus” in the mark PORNO JESUS
clearly refers to Jesus of Nazareth, the individual upon whom the Christian
faith is based, we find that the group that may be disparaged consists of
Christian-Americans.
The mark PORNO JESUS associates Jesus Christ with participating in
pornography or otherwise being connected with pornographic materials.
Thus, the plain meaning of the terms comprising the mark PORNO JESUS,
which links Jesus with pornography, supports a finding that the mark may
disparage Christian-Americans. The connection between Jesus and
pornographic or sexually explicit materials engendered by the mark is
emphasized in this case inasmuch as the identification of goods indicates that

11 Applicant’s brief, p. 8.
Serial No. 85767380

11
Applicant intends to use his mark in connection with sexually explicit
materials.
The Examining Attorney’s evidence from the Internet websites of several
Christian denominations demonstrates that these denominations oppose
pornography, its use, distribution and production. This evidence further
demonstrates that a segment of the Christian-American population considers
the making, distribution and viewing of pornography to be harmful, and not
in conformance with the tenets of Christianity.
Applicant appears to argue that Christian-Americans cannot be
disparaged by his mark because it does not refer to Christians or Christian-
Americans, per se:
There is no “religious order” called JESUS. The evidence shows
that “Christianity” is the name of a religious order, and that
“Jesus” refers to the historical “Jesus of Nazareth”, which is not
a religious “belief or tenet” under Section 2(a). Moreover, the
followers of Christian teachings are not called “JESUS”. To be
disparaging, Section 2(a) strictly requires that the mark must
focus on the group of persons that adhere to the beliefs or
tenets.12

Applicant is correct that we must focus our determination of the issue of
disparagement on the referenced group – in this case, Christian-Americans –
and we have done so. We further agree that the evidence of record does not
support a finding that “Jesus” is the name of a religious order. However, it is
not necessary that the mark itself identify the name of a religious order,

12 7 TTABVue 14. Record citations are to TTABVue, the Trademark Trial and
Appeal Board’s publically available docket history system. See Turdin v. Trilobite,
Ltd., 109 USPQ2d 1473, 1476 n.6 (TTAB 2014).
Serial No. 85767380

12
belief or tenet in order to be found disparaging to adherents of that belief. For
instance, in Lebanese Arak, 94 USPQ2d at 1223, we found that the likely
meaning of the term KHORAN is the Islamic holy text and its use for wine
disparages the beliefs of Muslim-Americans, who are not themselves referred
to as “Khoran.”
We note that the Examining Attorney relies heavily upon the Lebanese
Arak decision, and tries to fit the facts of the instant case into the analytic
framework of that case. However, in Lebanese Arak it was the association of
the Islamic holy text with wine, which Muslims are forbidden to drink, that
made the mark KHORAN disparaging to Muslim-Americans. This case
differs from the facts of Lebanese Arak because the mark PORNO JESUS
disparages Christian-Americans on its face by associating Jesus of Nazareth
with pornography or sexually explicit materials. In this regard, the mark
PORNO JESUS, like HEEB, may be found disparaging regardless of the
goods to which the mark is affixed.
Applicant argues that the Examining Attorney’s evidentiary showing fails
because
the Examining Attorney has not submitted any evidence
supporting the proposition that the term “Jesus” is “so uniquely
and unmistakably associated with Christians as to constitute
their identity”. On the contrary, “Jesus” has been appropriated
by a variety of different religious groups, including Islam,
Judaism, Bahá'í, Scientology, and Raëlism. [citations to the
record omitted.] Notably, Jesus plays an important role in the
Islamic faith. The mere fact that Jesus plays an important role
[sic] other religions shows that “Jesus” is not “uniquely” and
“unmistakably” associated with Christians as to “constitute
Serial No. 85767380

13
their identity”. Given the appropriation of Jesus by many
religious groups, Christians would not be uniquely offended by
any perceived misuse of “Jesus”.13

However, it is not necessary for the Examining Attorney to demonstrate
that “Jesus” is “so uniquely and unmistakably associated with Christians as
to constitute their identity” in order to support a refusal based upon
disparagement under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act. Applicant’s
arguments with regard to pointing uniquely to the Christian religion or its
adherents would be relevant if the refusal were based on the Section 2(a)
prohibition of registration of matter which may falsely suggest a connection
with institutions or beliefs, but that is a different statutory basis to refuse
registration, one which the Examining Attorney did not interpose in this
case. Cf., e.g., Bd. of Trs. Of Univ. of Ala v. Pitts, 107 USPQ2d 2001 (TTAB
2013). Furthermore, the mere fact that Jesus plays a role in religions other
than Christianity does not diminish the potential for the mark PORNO
JESUS to be disparaging to a substantial composite of Christian-Americans.
If anything, it suggests that additional religious groups may be disparaged to
some degree by the mark. It is not necessary for the Examining Attorney to
prove either that the mark is uniquely disparaging to Christian-Americans
or, conversely, also disparaging to members of other religions in which Jesus
plays a part.
Applicant further argues that the Examining Attorney’s reliance upon
Lebanese Arak is misplaced because

13 7 TTABVue 15.
Serial No. 85767380

14
While the Koran is well known to strictly prohibit alcohol, the
prohibition of pornography is not uniquely Christian, and there
is nothing in the record to suggest that Applicant’s Mark is
particularly disparaging to Christians as opposed to other
groups which may also find pornography distasteful or
offensive.14

However, there is no requirement for the Examining Attorney to show that
practitioners of Christianity uniquely find pornographic materials to be
offensive in order to support a finding that PORNO JESUS may disparage
Christian-Americans. That non-Christian individuals or groups may also find
Applicant’s goods distasteful simply does not aid Applicant in traversing the
refusal to register.
Applicant also argues that his mark should be allowed to register because
other offensive “JESUS” marks were allowed, including
HOOKERS FOR JESUS and REDNECK JESUS. Neither of
these was found to be “disparaging”, and both are more
“offensive” than PORNO JESUS. Applicant’s Mark should not be
treated differently, and all doubt should be resolved in favor of
the Applicant.15

Applicant’s argument that other potentially disparaging or otherwise
offensive marks consisting in part of the word JESUS have been registered
cannot assist him in traversing a refusal to register a disparaging term. It is
well-established that even if marks in prior registrations have some
characteristics similar to Applicant’s mark, the USPTO’s allowance of such
prior registrations does not bind the Board. In re Nett Designs Inc., 236 F.3d
1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “The fact that, whether

14 Id.
15 Id.
Serial No. 85767380

15
because of administrative error or otherwise, some marks have been
registered even though they may be in violation of the governing statutory
standard does not mean that the agency must forgo applying that standard in
all other cases.” In re Boulevard Entertainment, Inc., 67 USPQ2d at 1480.16
We also note that none of the third-party registrations relied upon by
Applicant associate Jesus Christ with pornographic materials, and none
identifies adult-themed materials.
Applicant argues in addition
the Examining Attorney has not shown that a substantial
composite of contemporary Christians would be disparaged by
Applicant’s Mark. As discussed above, contemporary Christians
have a much more liberalized approach to sexuality and even
participate in once-“grave offenses” such as homosexuality,
adultery, and viewing pornography.17

In this regard, we acknowledge Applicant’s Internet evidence of the existence
of a sub-genre of Christian-themed pornographic movies, featuring married
couples portraying married couples engaged in sex acts intended to be
instructional and reflecting the beliefs of some Christians. However, the
existence of a sub-genre of Christian-themed pornography suggests that the
larger body of pornography in general does not reflect Christian beliefs.
Moreover, Applicant’s identification of goods does not restrict them to a type
that theoretically may be acceptable to certain Christians. Further, the
Examining Attorney need not show that the entirety, or even a majority, of

16 We do not opine on whether the third-party registrations made of record by
Applicant issued in violation of the Trademark Act. The registrability of those marks
is not before us.
17 7 TTABVue 16.
Serial No. 85767380

16
the referenced group may be disparaged by the mark PORNO JESUS. Harjo,
50 USPQ2d at 1758 (TTAB 1999). That there may be some Christians who
are not offended by pornographic materials or otherwise enjoy viewing them
does not compel a different result. See In re Heeb Media, LLC, 89 USPQ2d at
1074 (HEEB disparaging notwithstanding support for mark among some
members of referenced group).
In this case, we find that the Examining Attorney has met his burden of
showing that Applicant’s mark is disparaging to a substantial composite of
Christian-Americans and Applicant has not satisfactorily rebutted the prima
facie case of disparagement. “In evaluating the Examining Attorney’s
evidence we must be cognizant of the USPTO’s limitations in amassing
evidence and ‘we look only for substantial evidence, or more than a scintilla
of evidence, in support of the PTO’s prima facie case.’” Heeb Media, 89
USPQ2d at 1078 (quoting In re Pacer Technology, 338 F.3d 1348, 67 USPQ2d
1629, 1632 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). See also Squaw Valley, 80 USPQ2d at 1272.
Further, in the absence of direct evidence, the Office may meet its burden by
extrapolating from the evidence of record that a substantial composite of
Christian-Americans find Applicant’s use of PORNO JESUS for the identified
goods to be disparaging. Squaw Valley, 80 USPQ2d at 1272.
Finally, and as we have observed in similar cases, our decision is limited
to the registration of the mark and does not concern the use of Applicant’s
mark. See, e.g., FirstHealth of Carolinas, Inc. v. CareFirst of Md., Inc., 479
Serial No. 85767380

17
F.3d 825, 81 USPQ2d 1919, 1921 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“The Board is empowered
to determine only the right to register. The Board is not authorized to
determine the right to use . . . .”) (citation omitted); In re Four Seasons Hotels
Ltd., 987 F.2d 1565, 26 USPQ2d 1071, 1072 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“Denial of
registration does not deny the owner the right to use the mark . ...”)..
Decision: The refusal to register under Section 2(a), on the ground that
the mark PORNO JESUS may disparage Christian-Americans, is affirmed.
Because we affirm the refusal on this basis, we do not reach the alternative
basis of refusal asserted by the Examining Attorney, i.e., that the mark is
also scandalous under Section 2(a).