To:
`
`Subject:
`
`Sent:
`
`Sent As:
`
`Attachments:
`
`James Brown (hultquist@iptl.com)
`
`TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 78802877 - CAROLINA TARHIX - 4266-109
`
`2/21/2007 4:16:15 PM
`
`ECOM102@USPTO.GOV
`
`Attachment - 1
`Attachment - 2
`Attachment - 3
`Attachment - 4
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) SERIAL NO:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) APPLICANT:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`James Brown
`
`78/802877
`
`*78802877*
`
`RETURN ADDRESS:(cid:160)
`Commissioner for Trademarks
`P.O. Box 1451
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
`(cid:160) STEVEN J. HULTQUIST
`(cid:160) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY/TECHNOLOGY LAW
`(cid:160) P.O. BOX 14329
`(cid:160) RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709
`(cid:160)
`
`CAROLINA TARHIX
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) MARK:(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO :(cid:160)(cid:160) 4266-109
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS:(cid:160)(cid:160) hultquist@iptl.com
`
`Please provide in all correspondence:
`
`(cid:160)1
`
`.(cid:160) Filing date, serial number, mark and
`applicant's name.
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`2.(cid:160) Date of this Office Action.
`3.(cid:160) Examining Attorney's name and
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Law Office number.
`4. Your
`telephone number and e-mail
`address.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`OFFICE ACTION
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`ESPONSE TIME LIMIT:(cid:160) TO AVOID ABANDONMENT, THE OFFICE MUST RECEIVE A PROPER RESPONSE TO THIS OFFICE
`ACTION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE MAILING OR E-MAILING DATE.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION:(cid:160) If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this
`information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.uspto.gov/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the
`prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`erial Number(cid:160) 78/802877
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`HIS IS A FINAL ACTION
`
`STATUS
`This letter is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on January 21, 2007. (cid:160) Therein, the applicant: 1) responded to the refusal of the
`mark under Section 2(a) based on disparagement; 2) responded to the refusal of the mark based on false connection; 3) amended the
`identification of goods; and 4) disclaimed the geographically descriptive wording.(cid:160) Numbers 2, 3 and 4 are acceptable.(cid:160) The refusal for false
`connection is withdrawn.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`or the reasons stated below, the refusal of the application because it consists of matter that may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute the
`University of North Carolina Tar Heals is herein made FINAL.
`
`(cid:160)R
`
`efusal - Disparaging
`
`(cid:160)
`

`
`Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute
`persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.(cid:160) Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d
`1705 (TTAB 1999), rev’d in part , 284 F. Supp. 2d 96, 68 USPQ2d 1225 (D.D.C. 2003), remanded, 415 F.3d 44, 75 USPQ2d 1525 (D.C. Cir.
`2005); see Order Sons of Italy in Am. v. Memphis Mafia, Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1364 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1203.03 et seq.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he following two factors must be considered when determining whether matter may be disparaging under Section 2(a):(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160) 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 mark is used in the marketplace
`in connection with the goods or services; and
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160) 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.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Harjo, 50 USPQ2d at 1740-1741.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he examining attorney has submitted the relevant dictionary definition of the term “HICK”. (cid:160) The definition itself and the accompanying
`
`quotation is significant evidence that the term would be disparaging to a person of ordinary sensibilities.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Parody Argument
`Applicant argues that in the proper context of the applicable marketplace, the CAROLINA TARHIX mark will be perceived as a parody of the
`registered mark and the University of North Carolina and that the case law “compels that Applicant’s mark be treated in the legal context of
`parody rather than disparagement.” (cid:160) Applicant’s response Section I.A. (cid:160) However, there is no known “legal context of parody” in relation to
`Section 2(a) unless the law has recently changed.(cid:160) Although parody may sometimes reduce a likelihood of confusion, parody is not a defense to a
`Section 2(a) disparagement refusal and Applicant has cited no applicable case law as a basis for the parody defense.(cid:160) Applicant’s mark may be
`
`a parody and still be disparaging to the target, Registrant.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The Examining Attorney has analyzed the mark in the proper context of the marketplace, contrary to Applicant’s argument. (cid:160) In Harjo, the Board
`found that the mark “REDSKINS”, when used in connection with the services in the marketplace, referred to Respondent’s football team.
`However, the term had not lost its meaning in reference to Native Americans.(cid:160) Id. at 1742-3.(cid:160) This case is substantially different than Harjo.(cid:160) The
`meaning in the marketplace is intentionally derogatory toward the target, University of North Carolina.(cid:160) Applicant has provided evidence of the
`rivalry between Duke University and the Registrant.(cid:160) The evidences states, in part, “[I]n North Carolina, where both schools are located, the
`rivalry may be a way of aligning oneself with larger philosophic ideals – of choosing teams in life – a tradition of partisanship that reveals the
`pleasures and even the necessity of hatred.” (cid:160) (Emphasis added).(cid:160) Response at Section I. A.(cid:160)(cid:160) The evidence and the marketplace indicate that
`Applicant’s mark is not only a derogatory parody, but it is intentionally derogatory to the Registrant and does not appear to be humorous or
`
`light-hearted.(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Applicant’s states that its intent in the trademark is to provide a light-hearted parody in the context of spirited rivalries by “humorously”
`playing on the HEEL element of TAR HEEL.(cid:160) However, the intent of applicant is not relevant to a disparagement inquiry.(cid:160) Harjo v. Pro
`Football Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1736 (TTAB 1999)); see, e.g., In re Anti-Communist World Freedom Congress, Inc., 161 USPQ 304, 305
`(TTAB 1969).
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`pplicant also states that the TARHICKS does not rise to the level of disparagement under §2(a) because it does not invoke unseemly issues of
`racism, sexism, profanity, and/or scandalousness that are involved in the cited cases.(cid:160) However, Applicant provides no basis for these arguments.(cid:160)
`Whether a mark is disparaging is determined separately by the target group in each case.(cid:160) And the targeted or relevant group must be determined
`on the basis of the facts of each case.(cid:160) Harjo v. Pro Football Inc., 50 USPQ2d 1705, 1739 (TTAB 1999).(cid:160) For cases involving disparagement of
`individuals or commercial entities, the perception of a “reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities” may be appropriate. (cid:160) Id. at 1741.(cid:160) Applicant
`provides no relevant analysis with the case at hand even though in cases such as Order Sons of Italy in America v. Memphis Mafia Inc., 52
`U.S.P.Q.2d 1364 (T.T.A.B. 1999) and Boswell v. Mavety Media Group Ltd., 52 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1600 (T.T.A.B. 1999), the Board found no evidence
`
`of disparagement.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`In Greyhound Corp. v. Both Worlds Inc., 6 USPQ2d 1635, 1639 (TTAB 1988), the Board found that the applicant's design of a dog defecating
`strongly resembled the opposer's running dog symbol and that the evidence of record established that the symbol "points uniquely and
`unmistakably to opposer's persona." Id. at 1640. (cid:160) TMEP §1203.03(c).(cid:160) With regard to whether the mark may be disparaging or “would be
`considered offensive or objectionable” by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities, the Board found that “the offensiveness of the design
`becomes even more objectionable because it makes a statement about the opposer itself, and holds opposer up to ridicule and contempt.” (cid:160) Id. at
`1640.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`his case is similar to Greyhound Corp. because the Applicant’s mark strongly, even intentionally, resembles Registrant’s TAR HEELS mark
`and “points uniquely and unmistakably” to Registrant’s mark.
`(cid:160) The offensive mark intentionally makes a statement about the
`Registrant itself, namely, that the University is comprised of students, faculty, administration, and alumni who are “p rovincial” or (cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`“unsophisticated,” [1] and holds registrant up to ridicule and contempt.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Legally Sufficient Showing of Disparagement
`Applicant also argues, “ even if the Examining Attorney fails to appreciate the lighthearted nature of Applicant’s mark and its perception by the
`referenced group as a parody, the disparagement refusal should be withdrawn because the Examining Attorney has failed to provide any
`
`evidence tailored to the views of the referenced group.” (cid:160) Response at I.B.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`First, whether the Examining Attorney appreciates the nature of the parody or humor of Applicant’s mark is not at issue. (cid:160) The mark is legally
`unregistrable.(cid:160) There is no “it’s just a joke” defense to a 2(a) disparagement refusal.
`(cid:160) Again, Applicant’s intent is Irrelevant. (cid:160) In In re
`Tinseltown, Inc., 212 USPQ 863 (TTAB 1981), the Board rejected the Applicant’s argument that its intention to use the mark on the outside
`
`surfaces of its accessories is to satirize the use of designers’ names on such products. (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) A
`Second, the Examining Attorney’s submission of the definition of “HICK” is sufficient to support a disparagement refusal on first action.
`dictionary definition shows what a “reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities” would determine to be the meaning of the term, and provides
`an example sentence showing how a reasonable person feels about being perceived as a HICK.(cid:160) Applicant argues that this evidence
`does not address whether the element “HICKS” is disparaging “ according to the view of the referenced group.” (cid:160) Applicant identifies the
`referenced group as “students, faculty, administration, or alumni” of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.” (cid:160) Applicant appears to be
`under the mistaken belief that the Examining Attorney must provide evidence of the perception of the referenced group themselves.(cid:160) In In re
`Tinseltown, supra, the Board rejected Applicant’s argument that the mark should be evaluated based on a particular segment of society because
`there was no limitation in the identification on the channels of trade for Applicant’s clothing accessories. (cid:160) Additionally, the “referenced group”
`of students, faculty, administration, or alumni of the University of North Carolina would clearly comprise individuals within the definition of a
`“reasonable person with ordinary sensibilities.” (cid:160) Additionally, students and alumni of the University of North Carolina would obviously contain
`a significant number of individuals from the South and its underlying rural areas.(cid:160) Therefore, any evidence of the general perception of the term
`“HICK” would include the “referenced group.” (cid:160) Applicant may not construct its own marketplace and limited context of a sports rivalry and
`assume that everyone in this context would understand, and not be offended by, the Applicant’s intended joke or parody. (cid:160) Further, Applicant’s
`usage of the term implies that the Registrant, an institution of higher education, is comprised of persons who are gullible, uneducated,
`unsophisticated and inferior to the rival school which comprises only the sophisticated and educated.(cid:160) Again, the mark is intentionally
`
`derogatory.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Evidence of the perception of the term by the general public is sufficient to uphold a disparagement refusal when the targeted group comprises a
`segment of the general public.(cid:160) The attached evidence from the Internet shows the likely meaning of “HICK” to be “ a derogatory term for a
`person from a rural area. It connotes a degree of crude simplicity and backward conservativism in values, manners, and mores.” (cid:160) (See attached
`Internet web pages).(cid:160) This refers to “HICK” in a disparaging manner because the definition of “derogatory” includes: Disparaging; belittling.[2](cid:160)
`The Examining Attorney may conclude that the targeted group would consist of persons from rural areas of the South because this is
`
`Applicant’s target group. (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`The Examining Attorney also attaches articles from a LEXIS/NEXIS search which shows that the perception of the term HICK is derogatory and
`offensive.(cid:160) (Please see attached twenty-six (26) articles).(cid:160) The articles include the opinion of a “North Carolinian” who found being portrayed as
`HICKS “quite offensive”. (cid:160) In an article from The Tulsa World, regarding a college sports rivalry, the author stated, “[I]t was Nord, OU’s
`offensive coordinator in one of those pre-Stoops dreary seasons (1995), who insulted Sooners everywhere with his crude comments about
`Oklahomans being hicks and badly in need of full sets of dentures.” (cid:160) (Emphasis added).(cid:160) If the people from the University of Oklahoma are
`insulted by the term HICKS, the Examining Attorney may conclude that the target group of the University of North Carolina will also find the
`term offensive and derogatory.(cid:160) The evidence also indicates that some people find HICKS to be the equivalent of a racial stereotype because it
`generally refers to white, uneducated people from rural areas.(cid:160) This contradicts Applicant’s argument that it does not reach the level of other
`
`cases on the issue.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Accordingly, even if the Examining Attorney appreciates the lighthearted nature of Applicant’s mark as a parody, the evidence clearly shows
`that the targeted group and consumers in general would find the mark offensive and derogatory.(cid:160) The Examining Attorney has provided an
`
`abundance of evidence showing that the term HICKS is disparaging to a person of ordinary sensibilities who would comprise the target group.(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Doubts Regarding the Refusal
`Due to the abundance of evidence showing that the term “HICKS” would be offensive and disparaging to the Registrant, Carolinians and the
`public in general, there is no doubt that Applicant’s mark CAROLINA TARHIX is legally unregistrable because it is disparaging under Section
`2(a) of the Trademark Act.(cid:160) Applicant’s intent for the mark to be a whimsical joke or parody to be used only in the context of a sports rivalry is
`not a factor in the Section 2(a) refusal.(cid:160) And neither is the Examining Attorney’s personal opinion or amount of appreciation of the supposed
`intent.
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`inal Response
`If applicant fails to respond to this final action within six months of the mailing date, the application will be abandoned.(cid:160) 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37
`
`C.F.R. §2.65(a).(cid:160) Applicant may respond to this final action by:(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`

`
`(1)(cid:160)(cid:160) submitting a response that fully satisfies all outstanding requirements, if feasible (37 C.F.R. §2.64(a)); and/or
`
`(2)(cid:160)(cid:160) filing an appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, with an appeal fee of $100 per class (37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(18) and 2.64(a);
`TMEP §§715.01 and 1501 et seq.; TBMP Chapter 1200).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n certain circumstances, a petition to the Director may be filed to review a final action that is limited to procedural issues, pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
`§2.63(b)(2).(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.64(a).(cid:160) See 37 C.F.R. §2.146(b), TMEP §1704, and TBMP Chapter 1201.05 for an explanation of petitionable matters.(cid:160)
`The petition fee is $100.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.6(a)(15).
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`f the applicant has any questions or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please telephone the assigned examining attorney.(cid:160)
`Thank you.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`/Michael Webster/
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`ichael Webster
`Examining Attorney
`USPTO Law Office 102
`571-272-9266
`
`HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
`ONLINE RESPONSE:(cid:160) You may respond using the Office’s Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) Response to Office action
`form available on our website at http://www.uspto.gov/teas/index.html.(cid:160) If the Office action issued via e-mail, you must wait 72 hours
`after receipt of the Office action to respond via TEAS.(cid:160) NOTE:(cid:160) Do not respond by e-mail.(cid:160) THE USPTO WILL NOT ACCEPT AN
`E-MAILED RESPONSE.
`REGULAR MAIL RESPONSE:(cid:160) To respond by regular mail, your response should be sent to the mailing return address above, and
`include the serial number, law office number, and examining attorney’s name. (cid:160) NOTE:(cid:160) The filing date of the response will be the date
`of receipt in the Office, not the postmarked date.(cid:160) To ensure your response is timely, use a certificate of mailing.(cid:160) 37 C.F.R. §2.197.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`TATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval
`(TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.
`
`(cid:160)V
`
`IEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded
`online at http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow.
`
`(cid:160)G
`
`ENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at
`http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`(cid:160)F
`
`OR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING
`ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.
`
`MAIL-IT REQUESTED: FEBRUARY 20, 2007(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`10083K
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`CLIENT: BROWN
`LIBRARY: REGNWS
`FILE: ALLNWS
`
`(cid:160) Y
`
`OUR SEARCH REQUEST AT THE TIME THIS MAIL-IT WAS REQUESTED:
`(cid:160) NOCAPS(HICK) W/PARA (DISPARAGING OR DEROGATORY OR DEGRADING OR OFFENSIVE)
`
`(cid:160) N
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) L
`
`UMBER OF STORIES FOUND WITH YOUR REQUEST THROUGH:
`LEVEL(cid:160)(cid:160)
`1...(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`85
`
`EVEL(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`1 PRINTED
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)
`

`
`THE SELECTED(cid:160) STORY NUMBERS:
`3,5,7,10,12,19,24,26-27,30-32,34-36,42,50,55,57,59,66,68,70,80-81,85
`
`(cid:160) D
`
`ISPLAY FORMAT: 65 VAR KWIC
`
`SEND TO: WEBSTER, MICHAEL
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`TRADEMARK LAW LIBRARY
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`600 DULANY ST
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA 22314-5790
`
`**********************************02628**********************************
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`Copyright 2006 The Seattle Times Company
`The Seattle Times
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`June 13, 2006 Tuesday(cid:160)
`Fourth Edition
`
`SECTION: ROP ZONE; Opinion; Pg. B7
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ENGTH: 1049 words
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`EADLINE: Northwest Voices;
`A sampling of readers' letters, faxes and e-mails
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) BODY:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) ... in schools ["Teens approach hugging with open arms," page one, June 10], why does The Times choose to perpetuate a demeaning
`
`stereotype? When describing the range of students who hug each other, [The Times] uses the term "band geeks," a common put-down for a group
`of students who work hard to develop musical talent and learn about great music.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
` noticed [The Times] used the term "athletes." Why not the more descriptive "dumb jocks"? Will we be reading about science nerds,
`bookworms, country (cid:160)(cid:160) hicks,(cid:160) urban thugs, or any of the other (cid:160) derogatory(cid:160) terms used to classify kids?
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`n our music program, we have had skilled athletes, academic stars, cheerleaders, thespians, student-government leaders and many students who
`fit into more than one of these categories. They also make time to play with the band. Why label them with the term "geek"? Why not ...
`musician?
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`ndy Robertson, high school band director, Redmond
`
`(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`Copyright 2006 Madison Newspapers, Inc.
`Wisconsin State Journal (Madison, Wisconsin)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`
`January 28, 2006 Saturday(cid:160)
`ALL EDITION
`
`SECTION: DAYBREAK; Pg. B1
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ENGTH: 411 words
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`EADLINE: IRISH WAKE GOOD FODDER FOR BROOM STREET PRODUCTION
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`YLINE: JOHN WIEDENHOEFT jwiedenhoeft£madison.com 608-252-6182
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) BODY:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) ... offering interchangeable condolences to the wife and mother of the deceased, but the whirlwind of subjects creates confusion.
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`poradic comic lines, plays on words ("the brown cow, now. How," is a memorable line), and abrupt pop-culture references make it hard to
`identify the tone of the piece, sometimes within a scene.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`his is not to say the play is a chaotic mess. Far from it. Although more than three dozen characters are packed into a 90-minute show, they
`rarely appear as caricatures -- with one notable exception being a borderline (cid:160) offensive(cid:160) portrayal of three " hick " brothers.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he play works best when it reduces to a single issue contemplated by a few actors in a scene. One standout scene has elderly aunts Martha and
`Eunice, played by Joseph Lutz and Scott Rawson, delightfully channeling Laurel and Hardy. Another is a dramatic flashback of a cousin's death
`in Vietnam, in which the sardonic humor never succumbs to a cheap laugh.
`
`(cid:160)"
`
`A Wake" plays at 8 p.m. Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays through Feb. 19 at Broom(cid:160) ...
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`January 27, 2006 Friday
`
`Copyright 2006 The Times-Herald(cid:160)
`Vallejo Times-Herald (California)
`
`SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ENGTH: 1700 words
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`EADLINE: Friday, January 27: Police got it right, In response ...
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`YLINE: Times-Herald staff
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) BODY:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) ... log for the date of her call, since it was not provided. However, these are just some of the possibilities explaining why they may not have
`
`been able to respond immediately. Just another perspective. In all of the times that I have reported incidents to the police department, not once
`have they not responded.
`
`(cid:160)T
`
`he second letter, " 'Speed traps' unfair" by Howard Lentz [Jan. 17], was a criticism of the Vallejo Police Department using what he called
`"speed traps," especially on what he deemed "cross-town freeways." In order to make his point, Mr. Lentz had to use a (cid:160) derogatory(cid:160) stereotype, "
`hick(cid:160) Georgia sheriff" [which I'm sure some Georgians would find (cid:160) offensive ] to make his point instead of just using intelligent arguments.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
` speed trap is specifically designed to "entrap" the motorist, meaning that the officers conceal themselves. However, in all the areas that our
`police department patrols to catch motorists speeding, the officer in his vehicle is always visible.
`
`(cid:160)O
`
`ne of the streets most frequently patrolled by our police is Redwood Street, which has houses facing the street from the intersection of Redwood
`and Oakwood to the intersection of Redwood and Broadway. Many people have been hit, injured and killed in just this short section of roadway.
`Most recently, Rick Kerr was killed ...
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`March 4, 2005 Friday ST. LUCIE COUNTY EDITION
`
`Copyright 2005 Stuart News Company(cid:160)
`Fort Pierce Tribune (Fort Pierce, FL)
`
`SECTION: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR; Pg. A6
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ENGTH: 110 words
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`EADLINE: Wrong person should apologize
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) BODY:
`
`The incident occurred during a Jan. 10 Port St. Lucie City Council meeting. It was stated that while young, crying children were also present, the
`mayor asked whether it was Edge crying.
`
`(cid:160)E
`
`dge was quoted in his response to His Honor: "We're not some Podunk city in the Midwest." I wonder what Podunk means? It seems to infer
`being (cid:160) hicks(cid:160) or inferior, which most certainly seems (cid:160) offensive(cid:160) and an apology from Edge is in order.
`
`(cid:160)E
`
`rnie Graves
`
`(cid:160)S
`
`(cid:160)P
`
`t. Lucie West winter renter
`
`age, Neb.
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`Copyright 2004 The News Journal (Wilmington, DE)
`All Rights Reserved(cid:160)
`The News Journal (Wilmington, DE)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`April 7, 2004 Wednesday
`
`SECTION: SUPPLEMENT; Matt Sullivan; Pg. 4A
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ENGTH: 530 words
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`EADLINE: SOUND OFF
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`YLINE: Staff
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) BODY:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) ... calls like this. Somehow, I doubt it.
`
`(cid:160)C
`
`hatting with readers is, without question, the best part of my day, any day, even when they're saying mean things about me.
`
`(cid:160)O
`
`h, let's face it, I enjoy those the most. I still tell the story from early in my journalism career about the guy who would cut out stories that I
`wrote, circle offending passages and mail them to my editor with notes about how nice he was to hire the mentally challenged.
`
`(cid:160)O
`
`r the woman who called me an uneducated, untalented (cid:160) hick(cid:160) because I used the (cid:160)(cid:160) offensive(cid:160) term "chick flick" in an article I was writing about
`... uhm, chick flicks.
`
`(cid:160)O
`
`r the woman who called, after I wrote about a reception hall on Long Island where the bride and groom ascended through the floor in a puff of
`smoke and a blare of trumpets to make their grand entrance into the party. ("My son got married there last weekend," she snapped. "It was very
`elegant." What were the odds?)
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`ut we don't tend to get those kind of letters here at Spark, and in my musings about why not, I've ...
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`Copyright 2003 Philadelphia Daily News
`All Rights Reserved(cid:160)
`Philadelphia Daily News
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`October 2, 2003 Thursday 4STAR EDITION
`
`SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 39
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ENGTH: 436 words
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`EADLINE: Family sitcoms short on laughs and reality
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`YLINE: ELLEN GRAY
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) BODY:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) ... week in what ABC is once again calling its "TGIF" lineup is "Married to the Kellys" (8:30 p.m., Channel 6), which represents the latest
`
`attempt to turn Breckin Meyer ("Inside Schwartz") into a TV star. Meyer plays a New Yorker who moves to Kansas after selling his first novel so
`his wife (Kiele Sanchez) can be closer to her family.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
` can take or leave Meyer, but I detested the pilot the first time I saw it, partly because it seemed overly full of Kansans-are-quirky- hicks(cid:160) jokes
`that even those of us who've only flown over Kansas should find (cid:160) offensive.
`
`(cid:160)I
`
`'ve since seen a revised pilot and a second episode and while I'm still not wild about "Married to the Kellys," I'm starting to see where executive
`producer Tom Hertz might go with it, and that might be a place where real family dynamics could creep in past the fart jokes.
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`ertz, whose bio indicates he's spent most of his life on one coast or another, told reporters this summer he'd based the Kellys on his own Kansan
`in-laws and Meyer's character, an only child who's ...
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)
`

`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`Copyright 2003 The Charlotte Observer
`All Rights Reserved(cid:160)
`Charlotte Observer (North Carolina)
`
`(cid:160) (cid:160)
`
`March 11, 2003 Tuesday ONE-THREE EDITION
`
`SECTION: MAIN; Young voices; Pg. 8A
`
`(cid:160)L
`
`ENGTH: 525 words
`
`(cid:160)H
`
`EADLINE: WHAT'S A SOUTHERNER?
`
`(cid:160)B
`
`YLINE: Observer Contributors
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) BODY:
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) Are portrayals of Southerners as semi-literate (cid:160) hicks(cid:160) (as in a new planned reality TV show, and in labeling an ex-Gastonia man's misstatements
`
`"Gastonese") (cid:160) offensive?(cid:160) Cole Kettler, 11, home-schooled: Personally, I hate negative stereotyping of any kind. I'll admit that in the past,
`Southerners haven't had the best education in the United States, but today I can't find much difference between people from the North and South,
`except an accent and a custom or two. After all, what's the difference? We're all Americans, aren't we? It's almost like racism!
`
`(cid:160)(cid:160)(cid:160) ... rednecks who are obsessed with stock-car racing and still whine about William Sherman. I associate being a Southerner with a pride in one's
`
`region that doesn't have to be accompanied by hatred of other regions. It would serve the whole country well if we could look beyond our
`stereotypes regarding each region.
`
`(cid:160)A
`
`nisa Mohanty, 18, Providence High (Young Democrats Club), Charlotte: As a person who has lived in both the South and the North, I have
`seen such stereotyping from both perspectives. Perhaps Southerners are portrayed as semi-literate (cid:160) hicks,(cid:160) but Northerners are often portrayed as
`cold, unfeeling people. Naturally, stereotyping is wrong, but it is difficult to deny that I have never done so and it would be hypocritical for me to
`become offended by it. Alissa Mroz, 16, Cannon School, Concord: Everyone knows that not all Southerners are semi-literate (cid:160) hicks,(cid:160) but this
`negative Southern stereotype has been driven into our heads throughout history. Creating a reality TV show about Appalachian hillbillies is
`bound to hurt people's feelings, but that won't stop CBS from trying to make the most money possible. Although stereotypes are (cid:160) offensive(cid:160) and
`wrong, they will continue as long as people are only motivated by self-interest.
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`att Rakow, 17, North Carolina School of Science and Math, Durham: While there are quite a few Southerners who aren't as bright as we might
`hope, the same can be said about (people in) any region of the United States. Stereotyping a region as large as "The South" with this is not only
`judgmental, it's largely inaccurate.
`
`(cid:160)M
`
`artha Lineberger, 17, Pinecrest High, Pinehurst: In my opinion, the (cid:160) degrading(cid:160)(cid:160) (cid:160)(cid:160) remarks that categorize Southerners as illiterate (cid:160) hicks(cid:160) harm
`the reputation of the speaker above all else. Everyone knows that the South is home to large corporations and fine universities that people from
`other places want to be a part of. Let the critics say what