SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Supreme Court on Thursday said it would decide, once and for all, whether federal intellectual property regulators can refuse to issue trademarks with disparaging or inappropriate names.
At the center of the issue is a section of trademark law that actually forbids the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from approving a trademark if it "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute."
The case before the justices, which they will hear sometime in the upcoming term beginning in October, concerns the Portland-based Asian-American rock band called the Slants. Previously, decisions have come down on both sides regarding trademarking offensive names. The most notable denial is likely the name of the NFL's Washington franchise, "Redskins." But lesser known denials include "Stop the Islamization of America," "The Christian Prostitute," "AMISHHOMO," "Mormon Whiskey," "Ride Hard Retard," "Abort the Republicans," and "Democrats Shouldn't Breed."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 02 2016, @01:51AM
Being demeaned or insulted are not good reasons to deny trademarks, either. And keep in mind that the reason that being demeaned or insulted is seen as a bad thing is because sometimes people take... offense. So it's about offensiveness in the end, which is 100% subjective.
I'm pretty sure you've already got your wish in that religions can not be trademarked.
Religions, maybe. But if you combine some religious terminology with other words, trademarks may be possible.