Attorneys at Law PO Box 100637 * NJ DC Bar
Erik M. Pelton* Arlington, VA 22210 ** VA Bar
Christopher R. Shiplett** T: 703.525.8009 *** VA DC & NY Bar
Benjamin D. Pelton*** F: 703.997.5349 erikpelton.com
of counsel

IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

April 18, 2009

Marcie R. Frum Milone
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
United States Patent and Trademark Office

RE: Serial No: 77628339
Mark: JUSTICE
Applicant: Jurisdictionary
Office Action Of: March 13, 2009

APPLICANT’S SUBSTANTIVE RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION
The following is the response of the Applicant, Jurisdictionary, by Counsel, to the Office
Action sent via email on March 13, 2009, by Examining Attorney Marcie R. Frum Milone. The
Examining Attorney has refused registration of the proposed mark, JUSTICE, pursuant to
Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1), on the grounds that the mark is merely
descriptive of the subject matter of Applicant’s printed and electronic goods. The Applicant
respectfully disagrees with the findings and requests that the Examining Attorney reconsider the
statutory refusal and allow registration of Applicant’s mark.
REFUSAL FOR MERE DESCRIPTIVENESS
A mark is suggestive, and therefore registrable on the Principal Register without a
showing of acquired distinctiveness, if imagination, thought or perception is required to reach a
conclusion on the nature of the goods or services. See In re Gyulay, 820 F.2d 1216, 3 USPQ2d
1009 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (APPLE PIE merely descriptive of potpourri mixture).
The proper test to determine whether a term is merely descriptive is to consider the
alleged mark in relation to the goods or services for which registration is sought, the context in
which the mark is used, and the significance that the mark is likely to have on the average
purchaser encountering the goods or services in the marketplace. See In re Pennzoil Products
Co., 20 USPQ2d 1753 (TTAB 1991) (MULTI-VIS is merely descriptive of “multiple viscosity
motor oil”); In re Engineering Systems Corp., 2 USPQ2d 1075 (TTAB 1986) (DESIGN
page 2 Response to March 13, 2009 Office Action SN 77628339
Ex. Atty.: Marice R. Milone
Law Office 115

GRAPHIX merely descriptive of computer graphics programs); and In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204
USPQ 591 (TTAB 1979) (COASTER-CARDS merely descriptive of a coaster suitable for direct
mailing).
Applicant’s mark consists of the word JUSTICE. The word used alone suggests a
philosophical, general definition of JUSTICE – “the quality of being just; righteousness,
equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.” See Exhibit 1. Consumers
would need to take additional logical steps to understand that Applicant’s publications focus on
more practical aspects of justice, more precisely, the legal system and public policy.

JUSTICE has a philosophical connotation, and is suggestive of Applicant’s goods and
services.
A suggestive mark is one that, when applied to the goods or services at issue, requires
imagination, thought, or perception as to the nature of the goods or services. See In re Shutts, 217
USPQ 363 (TTAB 1983). JUSTICE is at best suggestive of a magazine because it has multiple
meanings, definitions, and connotations, is a nebulous subject that is not easily captured and that
means different things to different people. The word JUSTICE is defined as: “the quality of
being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness,” See Exhibit 1. JUSTICE also refers
to the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. See Exhibit 2.
JUSTICE may refer to theories of distribution within societies, thus becoming an
economic issue. These theories resolve, often differently, questions about: (1) what goods
should be distributed, (2) to which entities should these goods be distributed, and (3) how much
each entity should receive. See Exhibit 2. Some examples of theories of distribution are:
egalitarianism, Marxism, and utilitarianism.
JUSTICE may also relate to penal measures. Many variations of penal justice have
arisien over the centuries. For instance, utilitarian theory postulates that punishment is forward-
looking. Retributive justice argues that punishment should equal the harm caused. See Exhibit
2. Social JUSTICE is another branch of JUSTICE which advocates for equal treatment in
certain aspects of society, such as race, gender, religion, and aboriginal peoples. See Exhibit 3.
On a practical level, any one of these philosophies can be applied to concrete situations and refer
to a specific field of law, such as criminal JUSTICE
page 3 Response to March 13, 2009 Office Action SN 77628339
Ex. Atty.: Marice R. Milone
Law Office 115

The Applicant’s use of the word JUSTICE does not specify any particular practice or area
of law, and could have different meanings to different people. Thus, the definition likely to arise
in consumers’ minds is the general, philosophical definition in which JUSTICE is a quality of
being just or righteous. The word JUSTICE alone does not communicate to consumers that
Applicant’s magazine discusses public policy and the legal system. Due to the ambiguity of the
word JUSTICE, consumers must take an additional reasoning step beyond reading the two words
in order to understand the Applicant’s goods and services. In light of the above evidence, the
Applicant respectfully requests that the Examining Attorney allow the mark JUSTICE to proceed
to registration.

The Applicant has responded to all issues raised in the Office Action. If any further
information or response is required, please contact the Applicant’s attorney. The attorney may be
reached by telephone at 703-525-8009.

Respectfully submitted,

Erik M. Pelton, Esq.
Attorney for Applicant

Enclosures
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
Exhibit 3
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

April 18, 2009

Marice R. Milone
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
United States Patent and Trademark Office

RE: Serial No: 77628339
Mark: JUSTICE
Applicant: Jurisdictionary
Office Action Of: March 13, 2009

EXHIBIT 1
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

April 18, 2009

Marice R. Milone
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
United States Patent and Trademark Office

RE: Serial No: 77628339
Mark: JUSTICE
Applicant: Jurisdictionary
Office Action Of: March 13, 2009

EXHIBIT 2
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ethics
Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law,
Theoretical
natural law, fairness and equity.”[1]
Meta-ethics
Normative · Descriptive
Consequentialism
Contents Deontology
Virtue ethics
1 Concept of justice Ethics of care
Good and evil · Morality
2 Variations of justice
3 Kinds of justice
Applied
3.1 Justice as harmony
3.2 Justice as divine command Bio-ethics · Cyberethics ·
3.3 Justice as natural law Neuroethics · Medical
3.4 Justice as human creation Engineering · Environmental
3.4.1 Justice as authoritative command Human rights · Animal rights
3.4.2 Justice as trickery Legal · Media
3.4.3 Justice as mutual agreement Business · Marketing
3.5 Justice as a subordinate value Religion · War
4 Theories of distributive justice
4.1 Egalitarianism Core issues
4.2 Giving people what they deserve
4.3 Fairness Justice · Value
4.4 Property Rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history Right · Duty · Virtue
Equality · Freedom · Trust
4.5 Welfare-maximization
Free will · Consent
5 Theories of retributive justice
Moral responsibility
5.1 Utilitarianism
5.2 Retributivism Key thinkers
6 Institutions
7 See also Confucius · Mencius
8 References Plato · Aristotle · Aquinas
9 Further reading Hume · Kant · Bentham · Mill
10 External links Kierkegaard · Nietzsche
Rawls · Parfit · Singer

Lists
Concept of justice
List of ethics topics
Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. As List of ethicists
a concept it has been subject to philosophical, legal, and theological reflection
and debate throughout history. A number of important questions surrounding
justice have been fiercely debated over the course of western history: What is justice? What does it demand of
individuals and societies? What is the proper distribution of wealth and resources in society: equal, meritocratic,
according to status, or some other arrangement? There is a myriad of possible answers to these questions from
divergent perspectives on the political and philosophical spectrum. According to most theories of justice, it is

1 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

overwhelmingly important: John Rawls, for instance, claims that “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions,
as truth is of systems of thought.”[2]: Justice can be thought of as distinct from and more fundamental than
benevolence, charity, mercy, generosity or compassion. Studies at UCLA in 2008 have indicated that reactions
to fairness are “wired” into the brain and that, “Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to
food in rats… This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need” [3]. Research
conducted in 2003 at Emory University, Georgia, involving Capuchin Monkeys demonstrated that other
cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that “inequality aversion may not be uniquely human.”[4]
indicating that ideas of fairness and justice may be instinctual in nature.

Variations of justice
Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where punishment is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to
achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its
outcome.

Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that punishment is
justly imposed and considered as morally-correct and fully deserved. The law of retaliation (lex talionis) is a
military theory of retributive justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; “life for
life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.”[5]

Restorative justice is concerned not so much with retribution and punishment as with (a) making the victim
whole and (b) reintegrating the offender into society. This approach frequently brings an offender and a victim
together, so that the offender can better understand the effect his/her offense had on the victim.

Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things – wealth, power, reward, respect – between
different people.

Oppressive Law exercises an authoritarian approach to legislation which is “totally unrelated to justice”, a
tyrannical interpretation of law is one in which the population lives under restriction from unlawful legislation.

Some theorists, such as the classical Greeks, conceive of justice as a virtue—a property of people, and only
derivatively of their actions and the institutions they create. Others emphasize actions or institutions, and only
derivatively the people who bring them about. The source of justice has variously been attributed to harmony,
divine command, natural law, or human creation.

Kinds of justice

2 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Justice as harmony

In his dialogue
Republic, Plato uses
Socrates to argue for
justice which covers
both the just person and
the just City State.
Justice is a proper,
harmonious relationship
between the warring
parts of the person or
city. Hence Plato’s
definition of justice is
that justice is the having
and doing of what is
one’s own. A just man is
a man in just the right
J.L. Urban, statue of Lady Justice at court place, doing his best
building in Olomouc, Czech Republic and giving the precise Justice by Luca Giordano
equivalent of what he
has received. This applies both at the individual level and at the universal level. A person’s soul has three parts –
reason, spirit and desire. Similarly, a city has three parts – Socrates uses the parable of the chariot to illustrate
his point: a chariot works as a whole because the two horses’ power is directed by the charioteer. Lovers of
wisdom – philosophers, in one sense of the term – should rule because only they understand what is good. If one
is ill, one goes to a doctor rather than a quack, because the doctor is expert in the subject of health. Similarly,
one should trust one’s city to an expert in the subject of the good, not to a mere politician who tries to gain
power by giving people what they want, rather than what’s good for them. Socrates uses the parable of the ship
to illustrate this point: the unjust city is like a ship in open ocean, crewed by a powerful but drunken captain (the
common people), a group of untrustworthy advisors who try to manipulate the captain into giving them power
over the ship’s course (the politicians), and a navigator (the philosopher) who is the only one who knows how to
get the ship to port. For Socrates, the only way the ship will reach its destination – the good – is if the navigator
takes charge.[6]

Justice as divine command

Justice as a divine law is commanding , and indeed the whole of morality, is the authoritative command. Killing
is wrong and therefore must be punished and if not punished what should be done? There is a famous paradox
called the Euthyphro dilemma which essentially asks: is something right because God commands it, or does God
command it because it’s right? If the former, then justice is arbitrary; if the latter, then morality exists on a
higher order than God, who becomes little more than a passer-on of moral knowledge. Some Divine command
advocates respond by pointing out that the dilemma is false: goodness is the very nature of God and is
necessarily expressed in His commands.

Justice as natural law

See also: John Locke

Justice as human creation

3 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

In contrast to the understandings canvassed so far, justice may be understood as a human creation, rather than a
discovery of harmony, divine command, or natural law. This claim can be understood in a number of ways, with
the fundamental division being between those who argue that justice is the creation of some humans, and those
who argue that it is the creation of all humans.

Justice as authoritative command

According to thinkers including Thomas Hobbes, justice is created by public,
enforceable, authoritative rules, and injustice is whatever those rules forbid,
regardless of their relation to morality. Justice is created, not merely described or
approximated, by the command of an absolute sovereign power. This position has
some similarities with divine command theory (see above), with the difference that
the state (or other authority) replaces God.

Justice as trickery

In Republic, the character Thrasymachus argues that justice is the interest of the
strong—merely a name for what the powerful or cunning ruler has imposed on the
people. Nietzsche, in contrast, argues that justice is part of the slave-morality of the
weak many, rooted in their resentment of the strong few, and intended to keep the
noble man down. In Human, All Too Human he states that, “there is no eternal
Injustice by Giotto di
justice.”
Bondone
Further information: Republic (dialogue), Master-slave morality

Justice as mutual agreement

According to thinkers in the social contract tradition, justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone
concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including
equality and absence of bias. This account is considered further below, under ‘Justice as fairness’.

Justice as a subordinate value

According to utilitarian thinkers including John Stuart Mill, justice is not as fundamental as we often think.
Rather, it is derived from the more basic standard of rightness, consequentialism: what is right is what has the
best consequences (usually measured by the total or average welfare caused). So, the proper principles of justice
are those which tend to have the best consequences. These rules may turn out to be familiar ones such as
keeping contracts; but equally, they may not, depending on the facts about real consequences. Either way, what
is important is those consequences, and justice is important, if at all, only as derived from that fundamental
standard. Mill tries to explain our mistaken belief that justice is overwhelmingly important by arguing that it
derives from two natural human tendencies: our desire to retaliate against those who hurt us, and our ability to
put ourselves imaginatively in another’s place. So, when we see someone harmed, we project ourselves into her
situation and feel a desire to retaliate on her behalf. If this process is the source of our feelings about justice, that
ought to undermine our confidence in them.[7] Utilitarianism.

Theories of distributive justice

4 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Theories of distributive justice need to answer three questions:

1. What goods are to be distributed? Is it to be wealth, power,
respect, some combination of these things?
2. Between what entities are they to be distributed? Humans
(dead, living, future), sentient beings, the members of a single
society, nations?
3. What is the proper distribution? Equal, meritocratic,
according to social status, according to need, based on
property rights and non-aggression?

Distributive justice theorists generally do not answer questions of
who has the right to enforce a particular favored distribution. On
the other hand, property rights theorists argue that there is no
“favored distribution.” Rather, distribution should be based simply
on whatever distribution results from non-coerced interactions or
transactions (that is, transactions not based upon force or fraud).
Allegory or The Triumph of Justice by Hans
von Aachen
This section describes some widely-held theories of distributive
justice, and their attempts to answer these questions.

Egalitarianism

According to the egalitarian, goods should be distributed equally. This basic view can be elaborated in many
different ways, according to what goods are to be distributed—wealth, respect, opportunity—and what they are
to be distributed equally between—individuals, families, nations, races, species. Commonly-held egalitarian
positions include demands for equality of opportunity and for equality of outcome.

Giving people what they deserve

In one sense, all theories of distributive justice claim that everyone should get what they deserve. Theories
disagree on the basis for deserts. The main distinction is between theories that argue the basis of just deserts is
held equally by everyone, and therefore derive egalitarian accounts of distributive justice—and theories that
argue the basis of just deserts is unequally distributed on the basis of, for instance, hard work, and therefore
derive accounts of distributive justice by which some should have more than others. This section deals with
some popular theories of the second type.

According to meritocratic theories, goods, especially wealth and social status, should be distributed to match
individual merit, which is usually understood as some combination of talent and hard work. According to
needs-based theories, goods, especially such basic goods as food, shelter and medical care, should be distributed
to meet individuals’ basic needs for them. Marxism can be regarded as a needs-based theory on some readings of
Marx’s slogan “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”[8] According to
contribution-based theories, goods should be distributed to match an individual’s contribution to the overall
social good.

Fairness

In his A Theory of Justice, John Rawls used a social contract argument to show that justice, and especially
distributive justice, is a form of fairness: an impartial distribution of goods. Rawls asks us to imagine ourselves
behind a veil of ignorance which denies us all knowledge of our personalities, social statuses, moral characters,

5 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

wealth, talents and life plans, and then asks what theory of justice we would choose to govern our society when
the veil is lifted, if we wanted to do the best that we could for ourselves. We don’t know who in particular we
are, and therefore can’t bias the decision in our own favour. So, the decision-in-ignorance models fairness,
because it excludes selfish bias. Rawls argues that each of us would reject the utilitarian theory of justice that
we should maximize welfare (see below) because of the risk that we might turn out to be someone whose own
good is sacrificed for greater benefits for others. Instead, we would endorse Rawls’s two principles of justice:

Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible
with a similar system of liberty for all.
Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both
to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings principle, and
attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.[9]

This imagined choice justifies these principles as the principles of justice for us, because we would agree to them
in a fair decision procedure. Rawls’s theory distinguishes two kinds of goods – (1) liberties and (2) social and
economic goods, i.e. wealth, income and power – and applies different distributions to them – equality between
citizens for (1), equality unless inequality improves the position of the worst off for (2).

Property Rights (non-coercion)/Having the right history

Robert Nozick’s influential critique of Rawls argues that distributive justice is not a matter of the whole
distribution matching an ideal pattern, but of each individual entitlement having the right kind of history. It is
just that a person has some good (especially, some property right) if and only if they came to have it by a history
made up entirely of events of two kinds:

1. Just acquisition, especially by working on unowned things; and
2. Just transfer, that is free gift, sale or other agreement, but not theft (i.e. by force or fraud).

If the chain of events leading up to the person having something meets this criterion, they are entitled to it: that
they possess it is just, and what anyone else does or doesn’t have or need is irrelevant.

On the basis of this theory of distributive justice, Nozick argues that all attempts to redistribute goods according
to an ideal pattern, without the consent of their owners, are theft. In particular, redistributive taxation is theft.

Some property rights theorists also take a consequentialist view of distributive justice and argue that property
rights based justice also has the effect of maximizing the overall wealth of an economic system. They explain
that voluntary (non-coerced) transactions always have a property called pareto efficiency. A pareto efficient
transaction is one in which at least one party ends up better off and neither party ends up worse off. The result is
that the world is better off in an absolute sense and no one is worse off. Such consequentialist property rights
theorists argue that respecting property rights maximizes the number of pareto efficient transactions in the world
and minimized the number of non-pareto efficient transactions in the world (i.e. transactions where someone is
made worse off). The result is that the world will have generated the greatest total benefit from the limited,
scarce resources available in the world. Further, this will have been accomplished without taking anything away
from anyone by coercion.

Further information: Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Libertarianism

Welfare-maximization

According to the utilitarian, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare across all relevant
individuals. This may require sacrifice of some for the good of others, so long as everyone’s good is taken

6 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

impartially into account. Utilitarianism, in general, argues that the standard of justification for actions,
institutions, or the whole world, is impartial welfare consequentialism, and only indirectly, if at all, to do with
rights, property, need, or any other non-utilitarian criterion. These other criteria might be indirectly important, to
the extent that human welfare involves them. But even then, such demands as human rights would only be
elements in the calculation of overall welfare, not uncrossable barriers to action.

Theories of retributive justice
Theories of retributive justice are concerned with punishment for wrongdoing, and need to answer three
questions:

1. why punish?
2. who should be punished?
3. what punishment should they receive?

This section considers the two major accounts of retributive justice, and their answers to these questions.
Utilitarian theories look forward to the future consequences of punishment, while retributive theories look
back to particular acts of wrongdoing, and attempt to balance them with deserved punishment.

Utilitarianism

According to the utilitarian, as already noted, justice requires the maximization of the total or average welfare
across all relevant individuals. Punishment is bad treatment of someone, and therefore can’t be good in itself,
for the utilitarian. But punishment might be a necessary sacrifice which maximizes the overall good in the long
term, in one or more of three ways:

1. Deterrence. The credible threat of punishment might lead people to make different choices; well-designed
threats might lead people to make choices which maximize welfare.
2. Rehabilitation. Punishment might make bad people into better ones. For the utilitarian, all that ‘bad
person’ can mean is ‘person who’s likely to cause bad things (like suffering) ’. So, utilitarianism could
recommend punishment that changes someone such that they are less likely to cause bad things.
3. Security/Incapacitation. Perhaps there are people who are irredeemable causers of bad things. If so,
imprisoning them might maximize welfare by limiting their opportunities to cause harm.

So, the reason for punishment is the maximization of welfare, and punishment should be of whomever, and of
whatever form and severity, are needed to meet that goal. Worryingly, this may sometimes justify punishing the
innocent, or inflicting disproportionately severe punishments, when that will have the best consequences overall
(perhaps executing a few suspected shoplifters live on television would be an effective deterrent to shoplifting,
for instance). It also suggests that punishment might turn out never to be right, depending on the facts about
what actual consequences it has.[10]

Retributivism

The retributivist will think the utilitarian’s argument disastrously mistaken. If someone does something wrong,
we must respond to it, and to him or her, as an individual, not as a part of a calculation of overall welfare. To do
otherwise is to disrespect him or her as an individual human being. If the crime had victims, it is to disrespect
them, too. Wrongdoing must be balanced or made good in some way, and so the criminal deserves to be
punished. Retributivism emphasizes retribution – payback – rather than maximization of welfare. Like the
theory of distributive justice as giving everyone what they deserve (see above), it links justice with desert. It
says that all guilty people, and only guilty people, deserve appropriate punishment. This matches some strong

7 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

intuitions about just punishment: that it should be proportional to the crime, and that it should be of only and all
of the guilty. However, it is sometimes argued that retributivism is merely revenge in disguise.[11] Despite this
criticism, there are numerous differences between retribution and revenge: the former is impartial, has a scale of
appropriateness and corrects a moral wrong, whereas the latter is personal, unlimited in scale, and often corrects
a slight.

Further information: Deontological ethics

Institutions
In an imperfect world, institutions are required to instantiate ideals
of justice, however imperfectly. These institutions may be justified
by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply
unjust when compared with ideal standards — consider the
institution of slavery. Justice is an ideal which the world fails to live
up to, sometimes despite good intentions, sometimes disastrously.
The question of institutive justice raises issues of legitimacy,
procedure, codification and interpretation, which are considered by
legal theorists and by philosophers of law.
The Justices of the United States Supreme
Another definition of justice is an independent investigation of truth. Court with President George W. Bush,
In a court room, lawyers, the judge and the jury are supposed to be October 2005
independently investigating the truth of an alleged crime. In physics,
a group of physicists examine data and theoretical concepts to
consult on what might be the truth or reality of a phenomenon.

See also

Other pages Justice types

Criminal justice Commutative justice
Ethics Corrective justice
Global justice Distributive justice
Just war Restorative justice
Justice (economics) Retributive justice
Morality Spacial justice
Social justice
Teaching for social justice

References
1. ^ Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), p. 1188. to-fairness-as-it-49042.aspx?link_page_rss=49042)
2. ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edn, 4. ^ Nature 425, 297-299 (18 September 2003)
Oxford: OUP, 1999), p. 3 5. ^ Exodus 21.xxiii-xxv.
3. ^ Brain reacts to fairness as it does to money and 6. ^ Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford:
chocolate, study shows / UCLA Newsroom OUP, 1984).
(http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/brain-reacts- 7. ^ John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and

8 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: OUP, 1991), 10. ^ C. L. Ten, ‘Crime and Punishment’ in Peter Singer
Chapter 5. ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell,
8. ^ Karl Marx, ‘Critique of the Gotha Program’ in Karl 1993): 366-72.
Marx: Selected writings ed. David McLellan 11. ^ Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed
(Oxford: OUP, 1977): 564-70, p. 569. justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969),
9. ^ John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Chapter 1.
Oxford: OUP, 1999), p. 266.

Further reading
Anthony Duff & David Garland eds, A Reader on Punishment (Oxford: OUP, 1994).
Barzilai Gad, Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 2003).
Brian Barry, Theories of Justice (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989).
C.L. Ten, Crime, Guilt, and Punishment: A philosophical introduction (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987).
Colin Farrelly, An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage, 2004).
David Gauthier, Morals By Agreement (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986).
James Konow (2003). “Which Is the Fairest One of All? A Positive Analysis of Justice Theories,” Journal
of Economic Literature, 41(4), pp. 1188 (http://links.jstor.org
/sici?sici=0022-0515%28200312%2941%3A4%3C1188%3AWITFOO%3E2.0.CO%3B2-
X&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage) -1239.
David Schmidtz, Elements of Justice (New York: CUP, 2006).
Harry Brighouse, Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004).
John Rawls, A Theory of Justice (revised edition, Oxford: OUP, 1999).
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism in On Liberty and Other Essays ed. John Gray (Oxford: OUP, 1991).
Nicola Lacey, State Punishment (London: Routledge, 1988).
Peter Singer ed., A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), Part IV.
Plato, Republic trans. Robin Waterfield (Oxford: OUP, 1994).
Robert E. Goodin & Philip Pettit eds, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An anthology (2nd edition,
Malden Mass.: Blackwell, 2006), Part III.
Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974).
Ted Honderich, Punishment: The supposed justifications (London: Hutchinson & Co., 1969).
Will Kymlicka, Contemporary Political Philosophy: An introduction (2nd edition, Oxford: OUP, 2002).

External links
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entries:
Distributive justice (http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/justice-distributive/) , by Julian Lamont.
Justice as a virtue (http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/justice-virtue/) , by Michael Slote.
Punishment (http://www.seop.leeds.ac.uk/entries/punishment/) , by Hugo Adam Bedau.
Justice for the World (http://www.justicefortheworld.org)
Video:Balkan Justice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtW6KF08UEY)

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice”
Categories: Justice | Philosophical concepts | Philosophical terminology | Philosophy of law | Political philosophy
| Virtues | Ethical principles

This page was last modified on 4 April 2009, at 09:02.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for
details.)

9 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
Justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3)
tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

10 of 10 4/7/2009 3:31 PM
IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

April 18, 2009

Marice R. Milone
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 116
United States Patent and Trademark Office

RE: Serial No: 77628339
Mark: JUSTICE
Applicant: Jurisdictionary
Office Action Of: March 13, 2009

EXHIBIT 3
Social justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Social justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social justice, sometimes called civil justice, refers to the concept of a society in which justice is achieved in
every aspect of society, rather than merely the administration of law. It is generally thought of as a world which
affords individuals and groups fair treatment and an impartial share of the benefits of society. (Different
proponents of social justice have developed different interpretations of what constitutes fair treatment and an
impartial share.) It can also refer to the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.

Social justice is both a philosophical problem and an important issue in politics, religion and civil society. Most
individuals wish to live in a just society, but different political ideologies have different conceptions of what a
‘just society’ actually is. The term “social justice” is often employed by the political left to describe a society
with a greater degree of economic egalitarianism, which may be achieved through progressive taxation, income
redistribution, or even property redistribution, policies aimed toward achieving that which developmental
economists refer to as equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

Social Justice features as an apolitical philosophical concept (insofar as any philosophical analysis of politics can
be free from bias) in much of John Rawls’ writing. It is a part of Catholic social teaching and is one of the Four
Pillars of the Green Party upheld by the worldwide green parties. Some of the tenets of social justice have been
adopted by those who lie on the left or center-left of the political spectrum (e.g. socialists, social democrats,
etc). Social justice is also a concept that some use to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In
this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality.

Contents
1 Theories of Social Justice
1.1 Rawls
1.2 Criticism
2 Social Justice from Religious Traditions
2.1 Jewish social teaching
2.2 Democracy & Political Movements
2.2.1 The Green Party
3 Social Justice Movements
3.1 Corporate Power & Enviromental Movement
3.2 Catholic social teaching
3.3 Economic Inequality
3.4 Racial Inequality
3.5 Gender Inequality
3.6 Health Inequality
3.7 Aboriginal Issues
3.8 Peace Activists
3.9 Human Rights
4 Periodicals or Publications
5 See also
6 External links

1 of 8 4/9/2009 10:53 AM
Social justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

7 References
8 Further reading

Theories of Social Justice
Rawls

The political philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) draws on the utilitarian insights of Bentham and Mill, the
social contract ideas of Locke, and the categorical imperative ideas of Kant. His first statement of principle was
made in A Theory of Justice (1971) where he proposed that, “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on
justice that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. For this reason justice denies that the loss of
freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others.” (at p3). A deontological proposition that
echoes Kant in framing the moral good of justice in absolutist terms. His views are definitively restated in
Political Liberalism (1993), where society is seen, “as a fair system of co-operation over time, from one
generation to the next.” (at p14).

All societies have a basic structure of social, economic, and political institutions, both formal and informal. In
testing how well these elements fit and work together, Rawls based a key test of legitimacy on the theories of
social contract. To determine whether any particular system of collectively enforced social arrangements is
legitimate, he argued that one must look for agreement by the people who are subject to it. Obviously, not every
citizen can be asked to participate in a poll to determine his or her consent to every proposal in which some
degree of coercion is involved, so one has to assume that all citizens are reasonable. Rawls constructed an
argument for a two-stage process to determine a citizen’s hypothetical agreement:

the citizen agrees to be represented by X for certain purposes; to that extent, X holds these powers as a
trustee for the citizen;
X agrees that a use of enforcement in a particular social context is legitimate; the citizen, therefore, is
bound by this decision because it is the function of the trustee to represent the citizen in this way.

This applies to one person representing a small group (e.g. to the organiser of a social event setting a dress code)
as equally as it does to national governments which are the ultimate trustees, holding representative powers for
the benefit of all citizens within their territorial boundaries, and if those governments fail to provide for the
welfare of their citizens according to the principles of justice, they are not legitimate. To emphasise the general
principle that justice should rise from the people and not be dictated by the law-making powers of governments,
Rawls asserted that, “There is . . . a general presumption against imposing legal and other restrictions on conduct
without sufficient reason. But this presumption creates no special priority for any particular liberty.” (at
pp291-292) This is support for an unranked set of liberties that reasonable citizens in all states should respect
and uphold — to some extent, the list proposed by Rawls matches the normative human rights that have
international recognition and direct enforcement in some nation states where the citizens need encouragement to
act in a more objectively just way.

The basic liberties according to Rawls

freedom of thought;
liberty of conscience as it affects social relationships on the grounds of religion, philosophy, and morality;
political liberties (e.g. representative democratic institutions, freedom of speech and the press, and
freedom of assembly);
freedom of association;

2 of 8 4/9/2009 10:53 AM
Social justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

freedoms necessary for the liberty and integrity of the person (viz: freedom from slavery, freedom of
movement and a reasonable degree of freedom to choose one’s occupation); and
rights and liberties covered by the rule of law.

Criticism

Many authors criticize the idea that there exists an objective standard of social justice. Moral relativists deny
that there is any kind of objective standard for justice in general. Non-cognitivists, moral skeptics, moral
nihilists, and most logical positivists and analytic philosophers deny the epistemic possibility of objective notions
of justice. Cynics (such as Niccolò Machiavelli) believe that any ideal of social justice is ultimately a mere
justification for the status quo. Supporters of social darwinism believe that social justice assists the least fit to
reproduce, sometimes labeled as dysgenics, and hence should be opposed. [1] (http://encarta.msn.com
/encyclopedia_761579584/social_darwinism.html)

Many other people accept some of the basic principles of social justice, such as the idea that all human beings
have a basic level of value, but disagree with the elaborate conclusions that may or may not follow from this.
One example is the statement by H. G. Wells that all people are “equally entitled to the respect of their
fellow-men.”

On the other hand, some scholars reject the very idea of social justice as meaningless, religious,
self-contradictory, and ideological, believing that to realize any degree of social justice is unfeasible, and that
the attempt to do so must destroy all liberty. The most complete rejection of the concept of social justice comes
from Friedrich Hayek of the Austrian School of economics: “The phrase ‘social justice’ is … simply ‘a semantic
fraud from the same stable as People’s Democracy’.”[1]

Social Justice from Religious Traditions
Jewish social teaching

In To Heal a Fractured World: The Ethics of Responsibility, Rabbi Jonathan Sacks describes how social justice
has a central place in Judaism. One of Judaism’s most distinctive and challenging ideas is its ethics of
responsibility reflected in the concepts of simcha (“gladness” or “joy”), tzedakah (“the religious obligation to
perform charity and philanthropic acts”), chesed (“deeds of kindness”), and tikkun olam (“repairing the world”).

Democracy & Political Movements

(United Nations, Socialists, Green Party, Separatist movements, etc.) Above all, it is the Socialist Parties of the
world that have achieved major successes in social/economic justice. Michael Harrington states in his book on
“Socialism” that people have done better under Democratic Socialism (along with social democrats) in Europe,
that it maintained capitalism because people had more spending power. In Reality, even before The Greens, The
Socialist have been champions and pioneers of Economic Justice, in labor (A Living Wage) and Personal
Productivity. (Universal Income or Basic Income Grant) The Income must be more than basic, but livable. The
socialist have always been champions of Human Rights and Humane policies. The Policy of Socialists embrace
Livable Communities and Sustainability. This has been the case before the early 1900s.

The Green Party

Social Justice is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party. Social Justice (sometimes “Social and Global
Equality and Economic Justice”) reflects the general rejection of discrimination based on distinctions between

3 of 8 4/9/2009 10:53 AM
Social justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

class, gender, ethnicity, or culture. Green Parties are almost universally egalitarian in their outlook, seeing that
great disparities in wealth or influence are caused by the perversion of or total lack of social institutions that
prevent the strong from plundering the weak.[2]

Several local branches of the worldwide green parties define social justice as the principle that all persons are
entitled to “basic human needs”, regardless of “superficial differences such as economic disparity, class, gender,
race, ethnicity, citizenship, religion, age, sexual orientation, disability, or health”. This includes “the eradication
of poverty and illiteracy, the establishment of sound environmental policy, and equality of opportunity for
healthy personal and social development.”

Social Justice Movements
Social justice is also a concept that is used to describe the movement towards a socially just world. In this
context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality, and can be defined as “the way in
which human rights are manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level of society”.[3].

There are a number of movements that are working to achieve social justice in society.[4][5] These movements
are working towards the realization of a world where all members of a society, regardless of background, have
basic human rights and an equal opportunity to access the benefits of their society.

Corporate Power & Enviromental Movement

(Social responsibility, Corporate watchdogs, Greenpeace, etc.)

Catholic social teaching

Catholic social teaching comprises those aspects of Roman Catholic doctrine which relate to matters dealing
with the collective aspect of humanity. A distinctive feature of Catholic social teaching is its concern for the
poorest members of society. Two of the seven key areas[6] of Catholic social teaching are pertinent to social
justice:

Life and dignity of the human person: The foundational principle of all Catholic Social Teaching is the
sanctity of all human life and the inherent dignity of every human person. Human life must be valued
above all material possessions.
Preferential option for the poor and vulnerable: Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgement God will
ask what each person did to help the poor and needy: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of
these least brothers of mine, you did for me.”[7] The Catholic Church teaches that through words, prayers
and deeds one must show solidarity with, and compassion for, the poor. When instituting public policy the
“preferential option for the poor” should always be kept at the forefront. The moral test of any society is
“how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience
of the nation. People are called to look at public policy decisions in terms of how they affect the poor.”[8]

Even before it was propounded in the Catholic social teachings, Social Justice appeared regularly in the history
of the Catholic Church:

The term “social justice” was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in the 1840s, based on the teachings of
Thomas Aquinas. He wrote extensively in his journal Civiltà Cattolica, engaging both capitalist and
socialist theories from a natural law viewpoint. His basic premise was that the rival economic theories,
based on subjective Cartesian thinking, undermined the unity of society present in Thomistic metaphysics;

4 of 8 4/9/2009 10:53 AM
Social justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

neither the liberal capitalists nor the communists concerned themselves with public moral philosophy.
Pope Leo XIII, who studied under Taparelli, published in 1891 the encyclical, Rerum Novarum (On the
Condition of the Working Classes), rejecting both socialism and capitalism, while defending labor unions
and private property. He stated that society should be based on cooperation and not class conflict and
competition. In this document, Leo set out the Catholic Church’s response to the social instability and
labor conflict that had arisen in the wake of industrialization and had led to the rise of socialism. The Pope
taught that the role of the State is to promote social justice through the protection of rights, while the
Church must speak out on social issues in order to teach correct social principles and ensure class
harmony.
The encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (On Reconstruction of the Social Order, literally “in the fortieth
year”) of 1931 by Pope Pius XI, encourages a living wage, subsidiarity, and teaches that social justice is a
personal virtue as well as an attribute of the social order: society can be just only if individuals and
institutions are just.
Pope Benedict XVI’s encyclical Deus Caritas Est (“God is Love”) of 2006 teaches that justice is the
defining concern of the state and the central concern of politics, and not of the church, which has charity
as its central social concern. The laity has the specific responsibility of pursuing social justice in civil
society. The church’s active role in social justice should be to inform the debate, using reason and natural
law, and also by providing moral and spiritual formation for those involved in politics.
The official Catholic doctrine on social justice can be found in the book Compendium of the Social
Doctrine of the Church, published in 2004 and updated in 2006, by the Pontifical Council Iustitia et Pax.

Economic Inequality

(Labour movement, Unions, etc.)

Racial Inequality

Racial inequality can be seen throughout society where certain parties are given advantages or disadvantages
due to their color, origin or religious background

Gender Inequality

(Women’s rights, Equal pay rights, etc.)

Health Inequality

(Universal medical care, Poverty, etc.)

Aboriginal Issues

(Land claims, Fishing & Hunting rights, etc.)

Peace Activists

(Action networks, Disarmament, etc.)

Human Rights

(Capital punishment, Corporal punishment, Prisoners rights, Euthanasia, Reproductive rights, Lesbian, Gay,

5 of 8 4/9/2009 10:53 AM
Social justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Bisexual and Transgender rights, etc.)

Restorative Justice (Individuals affected by crime and social injustice allowed a voice in justice system)

Periodicals or Publications
Social Justice was also the name of a periodical published by Father Coughlin in the 1930s and early 1940s.[9]
Coughlin’s organization was known as the National Union for Social Justice and he frequently used the term
social justice in his radio broadcasts. In 1935 Coughlin made a series of broadcasts in which he outlined what he
termed “the Christian principles of social justice” as an alternative to both capitalism and communism.

See also

Altruism Justice
Black theology Justice (economics)
Centre for Social Justice Liberation theology
Counselors for Social Justice Parity
Equality of outcome Progressivism
Equal opportunity Rule of law
Equity (economics) Social action
Favoritism Social criticism
Global Greens Charter Social engineering
Global justice Social injustice
Grassroots Teaching for social justice
Virtue

External links
Social Justice Fund that allows for social justice work within communities (http://sjwtheaaronsonfund.org
/index.html)
Access to Catholic Social Justice Teachings (http://www.justpeace.org)
Anti-Capitalism and the Terrain of Social Justice (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0202gindin.htm) by Sam
Gindin
American Social Justice Party (new U.S. political movement) (http://www.americansocialjusticeparty.org)
Defining Social Justice (http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0012/opinion/novak.html) by Michael
Novak
Centre for Social Justice (UK) (http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk)
Global Justice Movement net (http://www.globaljusticemovement.net)
The Global Green Charter (http://www.europeangreens.org/info/globalgreencharter.html)
Facing History and Ourselves (http://www.facinghistory.org) – Social Justice Organization
Human Nature: Justice versus Power (http://www.chomsky.info/debates/1971xxxx.htm) Noam Chomsky
debates with Michel Foucault
Social Justice in Context (http://www.ecu.edu/che/cfbi/socialjustice2005vol1.pdf) (pdf)
Social Justice Wiki (http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu)
Social Justice Review (http://socialjusticereview.org/)
Social Justice: Voices from the South (http://them.polylog.org/3/index-en.htm)
Social Justice’ Isn’t Any Kind of Justice’ (http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/philn/philn027.pdf) ,

6 of 8 4/9/2009 10:53 AM
Social justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Professor Antony Flew, London, Libertarian Alliance, 1993. A brief critique of the concept from a
libertarian/free-market perspective
A Dangerous Obsession (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18638) by Thomas Sowell
Institute for public policy research – Commission on Social Justice (http://www.ippr.org.uk
/ipprcommissions/?id=101&tid=101)
The Struggle to Subdue Luck, by Anthony de Jasay, Foundation for Economic Freedom, Jan. 8th, 2007
(http://www.fee.org/in_brief/default.asp?id=1026)
The Foundation for Law, Justice and Society (http://www.fljs.org)
Voice for Our Children (http://www.vfoc.org)

References
1. ^ “The Fatal Conceit – The Errors of Socialism”, 1988, University of Chicago Press, quoting Charles Curran.
2. ^ Green Party of Canada | Social Justice | www.greenparty.ca (http://www.greenparty.ca/en/about_us/green_values
/social_justice)
3. ^ Just Comment – Volume 3 Number 1, 2000
4. ^ Main Page – Social Justice Wiki (http://socialjustice.ccnmtl.columbia.edu/index.php/Main_Page)
5. ^ Social Justice and Social Justice Movements (http://web.archive.org/web/20070522080239/http:
//philebus.tamu.edu/~cmenzel/justice.html)
6. ^ Seven Key Themes of Catholic Social Teaching (http://web.archive.org/web/20070608113958/http:
//www.usccb.org/sdwp/projects/socialteaching/excerpt.htm)
7. ^ Matthew 25:40.
8. ^ Option for the Poor, Major themes from Catholic Social Teaching (http://www.osjspm.org/cst/themes.htm) ,
Office for Social Justice, Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis.
9. ^ Crackdown on Coughlin (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,795777,00.html)

Further reading
Atkinson, A.B. (1982). Social Justice and Public Policy. Contents & chapter previews.
(http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=UiZ2HdkNHBAC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&
dq=%22Social+Justice+and+Public+Policy%22&ots=-6iPmku71A&sig=yACP-
Kt6h174KR5dh3lsPDfGX64#PPP1,M1)
Carver, Thomas Nixon (1915). Essays in Social Justice. Chapter links. (http://books.google.com
/books?hl=en&lr=&id=kE0tAAAAYAAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA3&dq=zDo9sLfoyZ&
sig=PvrKeGno0zH1SBhr39xLwbPfm2g#PPP13,M1)
Quigley, Carroll. (1961). The Evolution Of Civilizations: An Introduction to Historical Analysis. Second
edition 1979. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund. ISBN 0-913966-56-8
Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
ISBN 0-674-88010-2
Rawls, John. (1993). Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press (The John Dewey
Essays in Philosophy, 4). ISBN 0-231-05248-0
For an analysis of justice for non-ruling communities, see: Gad Barzilai, Communities and Law: Politics
and Cultures of Legal Identities. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
For perspectives from Christian-informed contexts, see Philomena Cullen, Bernard Hoose & Gerard
Mannion (eds.), Catholic Social Justice: Theological and Practical Explorations, (T. &. T
Clark/Continuum, 2007) and J. Franklin (ed.), Life to the Full: Rights and Social Justice in Australia
(Connor Court, 2007).

Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice”
Categories: Justice | Political philosophy | Practical theology | Social ethics | Social work
Hidden categories: Articles with unsourced quotes

7 of 8 4/9/2009 10:53 AM
Social justice – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

This page was last modified on 8 April 2009, at 20:09 (UTC).
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for
details.)
Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3)
tax-deductible nonprofit charity.

8 of 8 4/9/2009 10:53 AM