## Facts

- Lebanese Arak Corporation applied to register the mark **KHORAN** (standard characters) for “alcoholic beverages, namely wines,” based on use in commerce.
- The application included a translation statement that **KHORAN** translates to **“ALTAR.”**
- The examining attorney issued a final refusal under **Lanham Act § 2(a)** on the ground that **KHORAN** is the phonetic equivalent of **“Koran,”** the sacred text of Islam, and that using this term for wine is disparaging because Islamic teaching forbids alcohol.
- The applicant appealed, arguing that disparagement should be measured by the views of the **general public** rather than a particular religious group.

## Issues

1. For a § 2(a) disparagement refusal, is the relevant viewpoint the **general public** or the **referenced group** whose beliefs are allegedly disparaged?
2. Does **KHORAN** for **wine** have a likely meaning that **may disparage** a **substantial composite** of Muslims, making the mark unregistrable under § 2(a)?

## Decision

- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board **affirmed** the refusal to register the mark under **§ 2(a)**.
- The Board held that disparagement is assessed from the standpoint of a **substantial composite of the referenced group**, not the general public.
- The Board found the likely meaning of **KHORAN**, in context of wine, to evoke the **Koran**, and concluded that associating a sacred Islamic text with an alcoholic product could be viewed as disparaging by a substantial composite of Muslims.

## Legal Principles

- The § 2(a) disparagement inquiry applies a **two-step test**:
  - Determine the mark’s **likely meaning** in context (including the goods/services and marketplace perception).
  - Decide whether that meaning **may disparage** a **substantial composite** of the **referenced group**.
- “Substantial composite” does **not** require a majority of the referenced group; it is enough that a significant portion would likely view the mark as disparaging.
- The disparagement analysis focuses on the **referenced group’s** perception; this differs from other § 2(a) inquiries (such as scandalousness) that may look to broader societal views.

## Conclusion

The TTAB held that KHORAN, used for wine, would likely be perceived as referencing the Koran and could be disparaging to a substantial composite of Muslims; registration was therefore barred under Lanham Act § 2(a).


In re Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1215 (T.T.A.B. 2010)