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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Funny) by CZB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:12AM (6 children)

    by CZB (6457) on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:12AM (#859611)

    There's just no foresight in government any more, no imagination. This sort of ruling about free speech vs public morality is all just a subjective value in keeping with the tastes of the population. The real problem is how annoying advertising is going to become. Non-stop vulgarity will dilute the punch of a well timed cuss.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Funny=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Funny' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:18AM (2 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:18AM (#859613) Journal

    Fuct you, got mine (t-shirt).

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:10AM

      by nitehawk214 (1304) on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:10AM (#859624)

      With FUCT like these, who needs enemies?

      --
      "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
    • (Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Tuesday June 25 2019, @11:17AM

      by SpockLogic (2762) on Tuesday June 25 2019, @11:17AM (#859667)

      Fuct you, got mine (t-shirt).

      The ideal product for Trump or RNC fundraisers?

      --
      Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by shortscreen on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:01AM (2 children)

    by shortscreen (2252) on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:01AM (#859623) Journal

    When FUCT wants to buy ads, will the censor-happy corporate media (social or otherwise) take their money? Causing all of their previous victims of censorship to raise the issue of double standards? And fueling various outrage-of-the-week boycotts?

    More likely, naughty brands will be relegated to advertising on pornhub and these trademarks will prove to have limited value. And the DC public transport authority will still have an excuse as to why they can't run David Swanson's anti-war billboard.

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:49PM (1 child)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:49PM (#859804) Journal

      Someone choosing to not endorse your product is not censorship,

      • (Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday June 25 2019, @08:50PM

        by shortscreen (2252) on Tuesday June 25 2019, @08:50PM (#859850) Journal

        Let me get this straight. You think that when the commercial for Lucky Charms comes on, it means the TV network is endorsing Lucky Charms?