## Facts

- Heeb Media, LLC applied to register the mark HEEB for clothing and headwear (Class 25) and entertainment services, namely conducting parties (Class 41).
- An Examining Attorney refused registration under Lanham Act § 2(a) on the ground that HEEB may disparage a substantial composite of Jewish people.
- The applicant appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB).
- The Examining Attorney submitted dictionary entries and media evidence describing “heeb/hebe” as a derogatory or offensive term for Jewish people, including evidence of offense associated with the applicant’s use of the term.
- The applicant submitted letters of support, endorsements, and advertising materials asserting that the term had been reclaimed or used ironically within portions of the Jewish community, particularly among younger Jews.
- The applicant also relied on an existing registration for HEEB for magazine publication, arguing it supported registration for the additional goods and services.

## Issues

1. What is the likely meaning of HEEB in connection with the identified clothing and entertainment services.
2. Whether that meaning refers to Jewish people and may be disparaging to a substantial composite of Jewish people under Lanham Act § 2(a).
3. Whether an applicant’s claimed reappropriation, favorable intent, or prior registration for different goods affects the § 2(a) registrability analysis.

## Decision

- The TTAB affirmed the refusal to register HEEB for the applied-for clothing and entertainment services.
- The Board found the likely meaning of HEEB in context was a reference to Jewish people and that the term functions as an ethnic slur.
- The Board concluded that a substantial composite of Jewish people would perceive the term as disparaging.
- The Board rejected the argument that a prior registration for magazines compelled registration for different goods and services or prevented a refusal based on the record before it.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 2(a) bars registration of a mark that “may disparage” persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.
- Disparagement is assessed using a two-step inquiry: (1) determine the mark’s likely meaning in context, and (2) determine whether that meaning may be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group.
- The relevant viewpoint is that of the referenced group, and the inquiry focuses on whether the mark may disparage a substantial composite, not whether some members approve or the applicant intends a positive message.
- Dictionary definitions, media usage, and evidence of group reaction are probative in determining likely meaning and whether the term may be disparaging.
- Prior registrations do not control later applications where different goods/services are identified or where the evidentiary record supports a § 2(a) refusal.

## Conclusion

The TTAB held that HEEB, as used for the applied-for apparel and party services, conveys an ethnic slur referring to Jewish people and may disparage a substantial composite of that group, rendering the mark unregistrable under Lanham Act § 2(a) despite evidence of attempted reappropriation and an earlier registration for magazine publication.


In re Heeb Media, LLC, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (T.T.A.B. 2008)