Frizzen Sparks expresses the degree that political correctness on these kinds of issues have gotten to when they say, “Even “conservative” legal groups won’t touch this with a ten foot pole.”

I think the Conservative legal groups are right to not touch this with even a 20 foot pole, because they would not touch a “Black Pride” case with a 20 foot pole either. They are right to not touch either. Because respectable Conservative groups show some morality and fairness in the cases they select, unlike the Godless ACLU.

It is the ACLU that is being the usual hypocritical organization that it is. They would have represented a “Black Pride” case in a heartbeat and have even represented cross burners before the US Supreme Court, where Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas had their heads for breakfast.

So it’s not a problem that a Conservative group turned this case down, because we all hope Conservative groups don’t play into the racial games played by groups like the ACLU.

Now given those other racial pride statements were approved, the “White Pride” slogan should have been approved also, so long as it was for a product similar to what other slogans were approved for. Adversity.net looked up some of the approved slogans and they were for things like food and hair products. I think a Jewish company in the hair care business might hold one of the “African Pride” trademarks. And given South Korean’s own most of the Black hair care market I would not be surprised if a Korean has one of them too.

So the U.S. PTO should have approved “White Pride Country Wide” for something similar, like White bread or White rice .

White pride works the same way too. Anyway, you’d have a hard time overcoming the PTO’s decision on review due to the deference given to administrative action. Like I said, the case is a loser.

Time for people to eith get truly diverse, or become so generic and bland that we are a sterile society.

I feel no particular need to be apologetic simply because I am descendent from European immigrants, and I resent the implications that a “person of color” has more right and opportunity to celebrate their heritage then I do.

The problem is popular perception isn’t logical like equal protection law. People know white power is something associated with neo nazi skinheads, while black power is more generic.

Racism and bigotry is racism and bigotry no matter what the skin color.

Thank you for so nicely pointing out the hypocrisy in this.

Because the slogan ‘white pride’ is associated with hate groups. Thats how trademark law works — not on your intent, but with the association of the words.

“gfactor, how did they rule correctly by allowing a slogan of “Black Supremacy” but not “white pride”?”

Probably because black supremacy does not bring up associations with neo-nazi skinheads.