Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:56AM   Printer-friendly
from the see-you-next-tuesday dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

It's official. You can get FUCT, US Supremes tell scandalized bureaucrats in rude trademark spat

When Erik Brunetti in 2011 first tried to obtain a trademark for his clothing company FUCT, the US Patent and Trademark Office blocked his application.

The USPTO relied on a portion of the Lanham Act that allows trademarks to be denied if they "[consist of or comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter." So Brunetti challenged the decision in court.

On Monday this week, the US Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision affirmed a December 2017 decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that found the act's trademark limitation violates the US Constitution's First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

Pointing at its own 2017 ruling in Matal v. Tam, which said the USPTO could not deny music group The Slants a trademark just because the term might offend some people, the Supreme Court told the agency in so many words to get FUCT on its registry. "[T]he 'immoral or scandalous' bar is substantially overbroad," the majority opinion, from Justice Elena Kagan, reads. "There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment."

[...] In the past, trademark applications for beverages "Marijuana Cola" and "Ko Kane," for clothing line "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," were denied for being scandalous. But trademarks have been granted for "FCUK" and "Handjob Nails and Spa."

Also at NYT, Courthouse News Service, NPR, Reuters, National Review, CNN, and Vice.

Previously: Can You Trademark an Offensive Name or Not? US Supreme Court to Decide
Two Unanimous SCOTUS Victories for Free Speech
U.S. Supreme Court Considers Issue of Trademark Protection for Profanity


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:20AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:20AM (#859591)

    Buttfuckers

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:36AM (1 child)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:36AM (#859603) Journal

    SCOTUS 2077 [youtube.com]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:49AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:49AM (#859640) Journal

      SCOITUS

      FTFY - because their fuckery [wikipedia.org] is supreme.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford