BULKY DOCUMENTS
`
`(Exceeds 100 pages)
`
`Proceeding/Serial No: __7
`
`5 22 6 3
`
`
`
`Title: AMENDMENTD REQUEST FOR
`RECONSIDERATION
`
`Part
`
`1
`
`of
`
`1
`
` 77952263
`
`

`
`In The United States Patent and Trademark Ofiice
`
`Applicant:
`
`Simon Shiao Tam
`
`Mark:
`
`THE SLANTS
`
`Serial No.:
`
`77952263
`
`Filing Date: March 5, 2010
`
`
`
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`Attn: Mark Shiner, Examining Attorney
`Law Office 102
`
`AMENDMENT AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`
`Dear Commissioner:
`
`This Request for Reconsideration is being filed in response to the Office Action dated
`December 23, 2010.
`
`AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION
`
`At the outset, Applicant amends the identified goods and services (in International Class
`41) in Application No. 77952263 to read as follows:
`
`“Live performances by a musical group that is comprised, in majority, of Asians.”
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`In an Office Action dated June 11, 2010 (Office Action, O6/11/10), the Examining ’
`Attorney initially refused registration of Application No. 77952263 for the mark “THE
`SLANTS” (“App1icant’s Mark”) under Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on the
`grounds that Applicant’s Mark is disparaging to persons of Asian ethnicity. Applicant submitted
`a Response to the Office Action on December 3, 2010 (Response to Office Action), and a Final
`Office Action was issued on December 23, 2010 (Office Action, 12/23/10), refusing registration
`
`1
`
`IllllllllllllllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIHIIIJHIHIII
`
`[Ii-16-2011
`
`U.S. Patent
`
`8. Tm‘:/TH Mali Rcpl D1, 32}
`
`

`
`on that same basis. Applicant now timely submits this Request for Reconsideration, and has
`concurrently filed an appeal of the Examining Attomey’s refusal with the Trademark Trial and
`Appeal Board.
`
`As set forth hereinafter, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration on the basis that
`Applicant’s Mark is not considered disparaging by a substantial composite of the referenced
`group, and Applicant here provides substantial evidence to support that position.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Applicant’s group, The Slants, is a dance-rock musical group that is well—known within
`the Asian community. Second Declaration of Simon Tam (attached as Exhibit A) (“Second Tarn
`Declaration”) at 11 1. All members of The Slants are of Asian Pacific Islander (API) descent. Id.
`The group plays on average 125 shows per year. Id. Each year, a number of the group’s
`performances take place in front of audiences exceeding 10,000 attendees.
`Id. They are
`endorsed by Fender Musical Instruments, Red Bull, Dunlop, and many other notable companies.
`Id.
`
`While the appeal of the group spans across all ethnic backgrounds, the group is especially
`recognized and celebrated within Asian community. Id. at ‘ll 2. Their debut album, Slanted Eyes,
`Slanted Hearts, was listed in the top 5 Asian-American albums of 2007 by Asiaxpress. Id. The
`group has also established itself as one of the most well-known performers within the anirne
`(Japanese animation) convention circuit, both nationally and abroad. Id. Finally, the group has
`been widely heralded in the Asian American press and has been featured in many of the largest
`Asian American festivals in the county. Id. Each year, The Slants are involved with events that
`specifically center on the celebration of Asian and Asian American culture. The yearly
`cumulative attendance at these events surpasses 500,000. Id.
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Applicant’s Mark, as used in connection with Applicant’s identified entertainment
`services, is a positive term of self—reference that promotes Asian cultural pride and identity.
`Such use by Applicant is not considered by a substantial composite of persons of Asian ethnicity
`to be disparaging. In fact, as explained below, the exact opposite is the case: people of Asian
`ethnicity overwhelmingly support Applicant’s use of Applicant’s Mark. Accordingly,
`Applicant’s Mark cannot be denied registration on the grounds that it is disparaging. Further,
`even if there were some doubt as the registrability of Applicant’s Mark, such doubt must be
`resolved in favor of Applicant and Applicant’s Mark must be published for opposition.
`
`Determining whether a mark is disparaging requires application of the following two-step
`analysis:
`
`(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
`
`2
`
`

`
`elements in the mark, the nature of the goods or services, and the manner in
`which the 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 Squaw Valley Dev. Co., 80 USPQ2d 1264, 1267 (TTAB 2006) (citing Harjo v. Pro-
`Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1740-41 (’I‘I‘AB 1999) (“Harjo I”), rev’d on other grounds,
`284 F. Supp. 2d 96, 68 USPQ2d 1225, 1248 (D.D.C. 2003) (“Harjo II”), remanded, 415 F.3d 44,
`75 USPQ2d 1525 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and afi"d, 565 F.3d 880, 90 USPQ2d 1593 (D.C. Cir. 2009),
`cert denied, 130 S. Ct. 631 (2009)). On the question of whether a matter may be disparaging, the
`general public’s views are irrelevant. Harjo I at 1739 (“the perceptions of the general public are
`irrelevant
`[O]nly the perceptions of those referred to, identified or implicated in some
`recognizable manner by the involved mark are relevant to this determination”). In detennining
`whether a mark is disparaging, the PTO strongly prefers that doubts be resolved in favor of the
`applicant and that the mark be published;
`.
`
`Because the guidelines [for determining whether a mark is disparaging] are
`somewhat vague and because the determination is so highly subjective, we are
`inclined to resolve doubts on the issue of whether a mark is
`disparaging in favor
`of [the] applicant and pass the mark for publication with the knowledge that if a
`group does find the mark to be
`disparaging, an opposition proceeding can be
`brought and a more complete record can be established.
`
`In re In Over Our Heads Inc., 16 USPQ2d (BNA) 1653, 1654-55 (T.T.A.B. 1990).
`
`The examining attorney has the burden of proving a prima facie case of disparagement.
`See eg., In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“The PTO has the
`burden of proving that a trademark falls withina prohibition of [Section 2(a)]”). The mark at
`issue should be considered “in the context of contemporary attitudes” and while keeping in mind
`changes in social mores and sensitivities. Id. at 1371. Finally, examining attorneys should take
`care not to substitute their own views for those of the referenced group. See In re Hines, 32
`USPQ2d (BNA) 1376, 1377 (T.T.A.B. 1994) (in reversing a refusal to register a mark that
`allegedly disparaged Buddhists, the 'I'I‘AB made clear that the PTO should “avoid interposing its
`own judgment for that of the Buddhists”).
`
`I.
`
`The Examining Attorney Has Not Established That Agplicanfs Mark is
`Disparaging
`
`In the Office Action, 12/23/2010, Examining Attorney introduces additional evidence
`purported to support the refusal to register the Mark. However, like the evidence presented in
`
`3
`
`

`
`the Office Action 06/11/10, this evidence is unconvincing. It does not establish that “slant” is a
`disparaging term, nor does it establish that a substantial composite of the referenced group finds
`Applicant's Mark to be disparaging. Accordingly, the Examining Attorney has not met the
`required burden of proof. 1
`
`The Examining Attorney first introduces what appears to be a wiki list (and has
`previously introduced‘ other wild sources) to argue that the tenn “slant” is, by itself, a
`disparaging racial epithet. However, the very nature of wiki sources — sources which are edited
`by users themselves - renders them of dubious reliability. More importantly, relying on sources
`such as Urban Dictionary and Wikipedia does not paint a complete picture (or, in this case, even I
`an accurate picture) of how the word is used in contemporary society. As explained below, a
`more comprehensive analysis reveals that the term “slant” is effectively no longer a term of
`disparagement, and is indeed with more and more frequency being used in a casual self-
`referential manner by people of Asian descent.
`'
`
`The Examining Attorney also submits an article concerning controversy over a physical
`gesture by country music performer Toby Keith. However, this article concerns a contextual
`physical gesture, and not the intrinsic definition of a word. To that end, the article’s context (i.€.,
`a white country western performer using his fingers to make his eyes appear slanted) is so far
`removed from the one at hand that it is difficult to see how one could plausibly argue that the
`article says anything that could be of use in the present matter. In essence, the Examining
`Attorney is using an instance of a contextual disparaging gesture, to make the case that a term
`itself is intrinsically disparaging. However, the flaw with the logic behind this argument, is that ,
`any racial, national, or ethnic epithet (and by extension, a physical gesture) can be used in a
`derogatory or offensive way, if, in context, offensiveness is clearly conveyed. See e.g., Expert
`Report of Ronald Butters, Phd. (attached as Exhibit B) (“Butters Report”) at ‘IT 16; Expert Report
`of Charlton Mcllwain, Phd., & Stephen Caliendo, Phd. (attached as Exhibit C) (“Survey Report”)
`at l 11 (“[A]ny term has some potential to be disparaging depending on the intention of its
`user... ”). This use, however, is not evidence that a word itself is intrinsically disparaging or
`derogatory, or that the word itself will be received as offensive by the persons it is intended to
`
`1 Applicant must also respectfully submit that the provisions § 2(a) of the Lanham Trademark
`Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) which require the U.S.P.T.O. to refuse registration to a mark that is
`scandalous, immoral, or disparaging are unconstitutional. See Richie v. Simpson, 170 F.3d 1092,
`1103-1104 (Fed. Cir. 1999)(Pauline Newman, .I., dissenting) (“The affirrnance of the Board’s
`refusal of registration [in In re McGz'nley, 660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1983)] has been criticized on
`constitutional grounds, as scholars have pointed out that the denial of benefits may be viewed as
`an abridgement of speech protected by the First Amendment.. . . Regulation of commercial
`speech may guard against such wrongs as fraud and false advertising, but not as a manner of
`suppression of social content”). These constitutional infirmities are especially true when the
`mark denied registration is a self-referential mark and is used by members of the allegedly
`disparaged group (often a discrete and insular minority) as artistic political-identity speech rather
`than as traditional commercial speech.
`
`

`
`describe. Id. Indeed, about all that can be said about the Toby Keith article, is that supports the
`proposition that Asians take offense when a white country-music performer attempts to ridicule
`them. This is, of course, not surprising, nor does it establish that there is anything necessarily
`disparaging about the term, THE SLANTS, either intrinsically, or when such term is used by an
`Asian group that recognizes and promotes Asian identity.
`
`Finally, as further evidence in support of his position that “slant” is a disparaging term,
`the Examining cites a MANAA (Media Action Network for Asian Americans) article. However,
`the MANAA article cited by Examining Attorney is also talking about a different context. To
`that end, whatever Hollywood's historical use of the term "slant" has been, it does not
`automatically follow that under contemporary standards the term itself is necessarily intrinsically
`disparaging, which is a point that seems to have not been lost on the article's author, who in the
`introductory section to his article prefaces his list by saying "this list is not intended as a bunch
`of ‘thou shalt nots'..." Further, elsewhere in the same article, the author also advocates that it is
`fine to present Asian racial features where, as is the case with Applicant's Mark and with the self-
`referential uses of the term "slan " described below, there is no suggestion that the features are
`unusual.
`
`The Examining Attorney also introduces evidence intended to support his argument that
`The Slants’ use of the name is considered disparaging by Asians. However, again, like the
`evidence concerning the definition of the term “slant,” this evidence is unconvincing. For
`instance, the Examining Attorney mentions that “the band notes that some people called them
`racists shortly after posting a classified ad for band members that included the band’s name.” In
`doing so, the Examining Attorney is suggesting that the band was criticized because of its name.
`However, this is simply untrue. The reality is that the referenced accusations were made by non-
`Asians who took issue with Mr. Tam seeking band members of Asian descent; the accusers were
`not taking issue with the band’s name itself. Second Tam Declaration at il 2.
`
`The Examining Attorney also states that “rarely does an article introduce the band
`without commenting on the controversial nature of the band’s name.” In response, Applicant
`must first note that the test for disparagement is not whether a name is “controversial”; the
`ultimate question is whether the name is considered disparaging by members of the referenced
`group.
`In addition, Applicant takes issue with the accuracy of the Examining Attorney’s
`statement, but, more importantly, to whatever extent that the Examining Attomey’s statement is
`factually accurate, such statement completely misses the proverbial “elephant in the room,”
`namely, that the Asian press is demonstrating its support for the band by featuring and promoting
`the band in those articles to begin with.
`
`Additionally, the Examining Attorney cites to a single online forum post from an
`individual who claims to be offended by the band’s name. In response Applicant must
`emphasize that this is nothing more than a single, anonymous post on an obscure forum that is
`not a part of the Asian press or community. Accordingly, it is hardly the type of evidence from
`which one could reliably draw conclusions about the views of a “substantial composite” of
`Asians. In fact, it doesn't actually say anything about how any Asian feels about the issue.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Finally, the articles concerning the Asian American Youth Leadership Conference do not
`paint a complete picture of the events surrounding Applicant’s scheduled speaking appearance at
`the conference, and in some respect are even inaccurate. Second Tam Declaration at W 4-6;
`Second Declaration of Rev. Joseph Santos-Lyons (attached as Exhibit D) (“Second Santos-Lyons
`Declaration”) at W 3-6. In February 2009, Mr. Tam was asked to be the keynote speaker for the
`event and The Slants were invited to perform at the event as well. Second Lyons Declaration at
`1! 3. However, the AAYLC subsequently became aware of concerns from Portland Christian
`High School that the band’s music might contain objectionable lyrics. Second Tam Declaration
`at ll 4. While the AAYLC ultimately found nothing objectionable about The Slants’ lyrical
`content, the AYYLC nonetheless decided that it would withdraw the invitation to have The
`Slants perfonn. Second Santos-Lyons Declaration at El 4. This decision was based on wanting to
`alleviate the concerns regarding the lyrics, as well as on the ultimate realization that, due to
`budget limitations, the AAYLC would not be able to accommodate The Slants’ perfonnance
`logistically. Id. The decision was not based on the name of the group. Id.
`
`One of the event sponsors, the Oregon Commission on Asian Affairs (OCAA), was
`concerned about involving The Slants, the OCAA indicating that some state legislators viewed
`the term “slant” as an offensive slur. Id. at 5. The OCAA’s primary concern was that these state
`legislators might be upset if the names “OCAA” and “The Slants” appeared together in written
`materials. Id. Originally, the AAYLC was going to return the OCAA sponsorship and keep
`Simon Tam as the keynote speaker. Id. However, with the OCAA (potentially) not supporting
`the event, the AAYLC was worried that other state groups might be hesitant to send their
`sponsorship support, and ultimately decided to choose another speaker. Second Tam Declaration
`at l 6. This was one of the most difficult decisions reached by the AAYLC and was one that was
`regretted by both the AAYLC and members of the OCAA. Second Santos-Lyons Declaration at
`‘ll 5. Moreover, Mr. Tam was still involved with the planning team, as a facilitator, and The
`Slants still sponsored the event. Second Tam Declaration at l 6. In addition, The AAYLC still
`promoted The Slants on its website, in the AAYLC 2009 magazine, and in all of the AAYLC’s
`event promotional materials which were distributed to students, chaperones, the OCAA board, as
`well as Asian American businesses throughout Oregon. Id.; See also organizational sponsors
`page of AAYLC brochure, wherein Simon Tam and The Slants are expressly thanked (attached
`as Exhibit E). Even after these materials were distributed, neither the AAYLC nor the OCAA
`received any complaints. Second Tam Declaration at l 6; Second Santos-Lyons Declaration at
`‘IT 6. The AAYLC was proud to have The Slants involved with the event and had no hesitations
`in publicly acknowledging their relationship with the band. Second Tam Declaration at 1! 6.
`Finally, Paul Van Mai (the AAYLC chair) later informed Mr. Tam that the decision to remove
`Mr. Tam as a speaker was a mistake because having someone from The Slants as a keynote
`would have elevated the overall experience for the Asian American students involved. Id.
`
`In summary, the “controversy” surrounding the OCAA incident was borne out of nothing
`more than concern that some members of the state legislature (asopposed to Asians themselves)
`would find the name offensive. Thus, as only the views of the referenced group are at issue in
`this matter, the OCAA incident has no bearing on this matter. However, even if the OCAA
`
`6
`
`

`
`incident does somehow bear on this matter, Applicant must reiterate that the test for whether a
`group's name is disparaging involves determining whether a substantial composite of the
`referenced group would find the name disparaging. By relying on this one instance, the
`Examining Attorney is allowing the actions of a single commission to in effect carry a national
`veto, even where the mark in question has been featured and promoted without controversy in
`over 25 Asian festivals, including the largest Asian American festivals in the country.
`
`II.
`
`Applicant’s Mark Is Not Disparagng
`
`As explained above, the Applicant’s Mark must be evaluated in the context of
`contemporary views, and not in context of what the term might have meant generations ago. One
`of the fundamental truths of linguistics is that human languages continually change. Arguably,
`the term “slant” was never as robust as many pejorative epithets, but in any event, the offensive
`connotations of the word have diminished to the point where the use of the word is obsolete or
`archaic as a form of disparagement, and indeed, Asians today increasingly view “slant” as a
`proud informal term of self-reference. See Butters Report (analyzing the modern meaning of the
`noun phrase, THE SLANTS). For example, the editors of the third (2010) edition of the New
`Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD) dropped the entire epithetic definition and its pejorative
`usage labels from the dictionary. Id. at ‘H1! 11-13 (discussing, among other things, the softening,
`and then ultimate removal of the definition of “slant” as a racial epithet). As noted by Dr.
`Butters, it appears that the NOAD editors judged slant to have been ameliorated to the extent that
`it has fallen into disuse as a pejorative racial epithet and is no longer considered particularly
`offensive to Asian-Americans themselves. Id. at il 13.
`
`It is no surprise then, that in contemporary culture the term is increasingly being used by
`Asians in a self-referential manner. Butters Report 1111 18-22. These uses include “The Slant”
`(an entertainment and news series about the Asian experience), “Slant Eye For The Round Eye (a
`popular Asian blog), the “Slant Film Festival” (a film festival showcasing Asian Artists), and
`“The Slanted Screen” (a documentary about Asian actors). 1d.; Response to Office Action,
`Exhibits 14-18 (self-referential uses of the term “slant”). Melissa Hung, the founder of the Slant
`Film Festival (which is now in its eleventh year), notes that throughout the entire time the
`festival has been running, there has only been a single instance where someone has contacted the
`festival to express concern about the use of the term “slant” in the festival’s name. Declaration
`of Melissa Hung (attached as Exhibit F) at 1l 3.
`
`Applicant established in his Response to Office Action, that the success of The Slants
`within the Asian community is indisputable. However, Applicant now nonetheless introduces
`substantial additional evidence in support of that point. See articles referencing The Slants
`(attached as Exhibit G); articles previously introduced in the Response to Office Action, but
`reintroduced here for purposes of displaying complete URL information (attached as Exhibit H).
`Unlike the evidence set forth by the Examining Attorney, this evidence specifically reflects the
`voice of the referenced group at issue.
`-
`
`

`
`Moreover, Applicant now also introduces direct survey evidence to establish that
`Applicant’s Mark is not disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group. The
`survey evidence, which was gathered in accordance with appropriate scientific principles,
`demonstrates, among other things, that few members of the API community view THE SLANTS
`as a disparaging term. See Survey Report.
`
`‘First, few survey respondents (16%) agreed that the name of the group was disparaging.
`Id. at 1! 7. Applicant notes that 16% does not even come close to rising to the level of being a
`“substantial composite.” See e.g., Harjo II, 284 F. Supp. 2d at 133 n.32 (36.6% of Native
`Americans did not constitute a “substantial composite”). Ultimately, if there was any strong
`feeling, it was in the direction as viewing THE SLANTS as a tenn that is not disparaging. Id.
`Moreover, even fewer agreed that THE SLANTS is disparaging when learning that the group’s
`membership is entirely Asian.” Id. at 11 7.
`'
`
`The results of the survey are not surprising, nor are they in any way inconsistent with the
`conclusions reached by Dr. Butters in his report. In summary, the survey evidence speaks to the
`exact issue in this matter, and wholly supports the argument that THE SLANTS is not considered
`disparaging by a substantial composite of Asians.
`
`Finally, to the extent that there is any doubt concerning the registrability of Applicant’s
`Mark, it should be resolved in favor of Applicant and the mark should be published for
`opposition. In re In Over Our Heads, 16 USPQ2d (BNA) at 1654-55; see also Lynda J. Oswald,
`Challenging the Registration of Scandalous and Disparaging Marks Under the Lanham Act: Who
`Has Standing to Sue? 41 Am. Bus. L.J. 251, 264 (2004) (“Where the registrability of a mark is at
`issue, the courts and ['ITAB] prefer that the examiner publish the mark for opposition rather than
`deny registration during the examination process. Their concern is that the government not be in
`a position of censoring marks without public input”).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`As set forth in detail above, Applicant’s Mark is not disparaging. As used by Applicant,
`it is a positive term of self-reference that has been embraced by the Asian community. While
`Applicant submits that this point was established beyond doubt in the Response to Office Action,
`Applicant has now submitted substantial additional evidence in support thereof. Applicant has
`sufficiently demonstrated that the Asian community does not find Applicant’s Mark to be
`disparaging, and, therefore, there is absolutely no justification for the Examining Attorney to
`refuse registration of the mark. Finally, even if there is any doubt concerning the registrability of
`Applicant’s Mark (which there is not), such doubt must be resolved in favor of Applicant. For
`all of these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that Examining Attorney withdraw the
`
`
`5
`
`’ Applicant notes that he has here amended the description of goods and services in his
`application to read, “Live performances by a musical group that is comprised, in majority, of
`Asians.” (Emphasis added).
`
`

`
`refusal of registration under Section 2(a).
`
`Please contact me at (503)727-2502 or spencer@mcnamer1aw.com if you have any
`questions.
`
`Date: June 15, 2011
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
` Sp
`
`cer I. Trowbridge
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`MCNAMER AND COMPANY P.C.
`920 SW. Third Avenue, Suite 200
`Portland, Oregon 97204
`Telephone: (503)727-2502
`
`

`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`T0 APPLICANT’S REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
`FOR SERIAL NUMBER 77952263
`
`Second Declaration of Simon Tam
`
`Expert Report of Ronald Butters, Phd.
`
`Expert Report of Charlton Mcllwain, Phd., & Stephen Caliendo, Phd.
`
`Second Declaration of Rev. Joseph Santos-Lyons
`
`Organizational sponsors page of AAYLC brochure
`
`Declaration of Melissa Hung
`
`Articles referencing The Slants
`
`Previously-introduced articles referencing The Slants
`
`F1Q1"'«'F1.U.0.°°?’
`
`

`
`

`
`1
`
`In The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Applicant:
`
`Simon Shiao Tam
`
`Mark:
`
`THE SLANTS
`
`Serial No.:
`
`77952263
`
`Filing Date: March 5, 2010
`
`
`
`Commissioner of Trademarks
`
`P.O. Boxv145l
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`Attn: Mark Shiner, Examining Attorney
`Law Office 102
`
`DECLARATION OF SIMON TAM UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 2.20
`
`1, Simon Tam, being warned that willful false statements and the like are punishable by
`
`fine or imprisomnent, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such willful false statements and
`
`the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or document or any registration resulting
`
`there from, declare:
`
`1.
`
`My group, The Slants, is a dance-rock musical group that is well-known within
`
`the Asian community. All members of The Slants are of Asian Pacific Islander (API) descent.
`
`The group plays on average 125 shows per year. Each year, a number of the group’s
`
`performances take place in front of audiences exceeding 10,000 people. The group is endorsed
`
`

`
`
`
`by Fender Musical Instruments, Red Bull, Dunlop, and many other notable companies (many of
`
`whom have a large Asian American audience).
`
`2.
`
`While the appeal of the group spans across all ethnic backgrounds, the group is
`
`especially recognized and celebrated within the Asian community. The group’s debut album,
`
`Slanted Eyes, Slanted Hearts, was listed in the top 5 Asian-American albums of 2007 by
`
`AsiaXpress. The group has also established itself as one of the most well-known performers
`
`within the anime (Japanese animation) convention circuit, both nationally and abroad. Finally,
`
`the group has been widely heralded in the Asian American press" and has been featured in many
`
`of the largest Asian American festivals in the county. Each year, The Slants are involved with
`
`events that specifically center on the celebration of Asian and Asian American culture. The
`
`cumulative attendance ofthese events surpasses 500,000.
`
`_
`
`3.
`
`When I first began asking for musicians to join the group, I created postings on
`
`craigslist and in local classifieds looking for individuals with a strong connection to Asian or
`
`Asian American community and culture. These postings were shared and circulated throughout
`
`the Asian community and I did not receive any complaints over the band’s name. During this
`
`time, the only negative reaction I had received was from those outside of the community who
`
`had issues with me specifically seeking Asian American band members and felt that I was
`
`excluding non-Asians from participating. They did not object to the band’s name. When
`
`recruiting for The Slants, I did not receive any complaints about the name.
`
`4.
`
`In February 2009, I was contacted by Paul Van Mai, the chairman for the Asian
`
`American Youth Leadership Conference (“AAYLC”) and was asked to be the keynote speaker
`
`2
`
`

`
`
`
`' for the 2009 AAYLC event. I was selected by a panel ofAsian American community leaders
`
`and my band, The Slants, was invited to perform. A few weeks after the announcement, the
`
`AAYLC learned that Portland Christian High School was concemed that - because of the secular
`
`nature of The Slants_- The Slants’ music might embody objectionable lyrical content. Upon
`
`review of The Slants’ music, the AAYLC committee did not find any content that it deemed
`
`objectionable, but the AAYLC nonetheless ultimately decided to withdraw the invitation to have
`
`the band perform. The decision was based on‘ wanting to head-offany concerns regarding the
`
`group’s lyrics, and was also based on the realization that budget limitations would prevent the
`
`AAYLC from accommodating the group’s performance logistically. There was never a
`
`discussion or issue pertaining to the band’s name because no one on the steering committee
`
`(comprised of Asian Americans) found it to be offensive.
`
`5.
`
`Later in March, I was contacted by Paul Mai ofthe AAYLC who told me that the
`
`Oregon Commission on Asian Affairs (OCAA), a state-run agency, was considering
`
`withdrawing their $500 sponsorship of the AAYLC if The Slants were involved because a few
`
`state legislators found the term offensive. They emphasized that this was not due to any
`
`complaints by the Asian American community itself; in fact, the OCAA chair Liani Reeves
`
`stateduin an email to me and the AAYLC:
`
`“After much discussion and heartache, the Commission has voted to withdraw the
`
`fimds. We very much appreciate your willingness to work with us to try and find
`
`an acceptable solution but unfortunately, the Commission's political and fiscal
`
`stability during this budget cycle prevents us from participating at this time. In a
`
`

`
`
`
`different climate, things would probably be different. We understand the
`
`financial hardship that this causes to the conference and a number of the
`
`4 Commission members, including myself, will be sending the conference personal
`
`donations to support the conference and help make up the loss of funding from the
`
`Commission.”
`
`6.
`
`With the OCAA not supporting the event with the $500, the AAYLC was worried
`
`that other state groups might be hesitant to send their sponsorship support so they reversed their
`
`decision to have me as the keynote speaker. It is to my understanding that the OCAA eventually
`
`reinstated their original sponsorship money to the event. Even though I was not the keynote
`
`speaker, I was still involved with the planning team, as a facilitator, and The Slants sponsored
`
`the event. The AALYC promoted The Slants on their website, in the AAYLC 2009 magazine,
`
`and in all of their event promotional materials which were distributed to students, chaperones,
`
`the OCAA board, as well as Asian American businesses throughout Oregon. I met with Paul
`
`Van Mai (AAYLC chair). I was informed that that the decision to remove me as a speaker was a
`
`mistake because having someone from The Slants as a keynote would have elevated the overall
`
`experience for the Asian American students involved. Furthermore, though The Slants’ name
`
`was printed on AAYLC public materials, the AAYLC did not receive any complaints from the
`
`Asian American community over the band’s involvement. The AAYLC was proud to have The
`
`Slants involved with the event and had no hesitations in publicly acknowledging their
`
`relationship with our band.
`
`

`
`All statements made herein ofmy onvn knowledge are true and all statements made on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true.
`
`/
`
`Date: June 3, 2011
`
`By:
`
`‘
`
`

`
`
`
`Exhibit B
`
`

`
`In The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`
`Applicant:
`
`Simon Shiao Tam
`
`Mark:
`
`THE SLANTS
`
`Serial No.:
`
`77952263
`
`Filing Date: March 5, 2010
`
`
`Commissioner of Trademarks
`PO. Box 1451
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`Attn: Mark Shiner, Examining Attorney
`Law Office 102
`
`EXPERT REPO
`
`ONALD
`
`RS
`
`.D.
`
`1, Ronald R Butters, being warned that willful false statements and the like are
`
`punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and that such
`
`willful false statements and the like may jeopardize the validity of the application or
`
`. document or any registration resulting therefrom, declare:
`
`1. This report is submitted on behalf of the Applicant, Simon Shiao Tam, in
`
`support of his application for trademark registration as noted above.
`
`.
`L Assignment
`2. I have been asked to analyze the meaning (i.e.,
`
`the DENOTATIONS and
`
`_CoNNo'rATIoNs) ofthe noun phrase, THE SLANTS, in the English language as spoken