SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 4, Informative) by darkfeline on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:31AM (3 children)
If Marijuana Cola is too scandalous, then surely Coca-Cola is too? It's named after the Coca plant from which cocaine is derived, and Coca-Cola was originally a medicinal cocaine remedy.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 1) by Mer on Tuesday June 25 2019, @09:23AM (1 child)
It's all in the context, and by context we mean someone getting offended. A concept that has no place in legislation since offense is defined by the victim, not the perpetrator.
But it's funnier when it ends up treating citizens like children.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:26PM
I think the Supreme's point is, it doesn't matter who is offended. Old saying from my youth, whenever I was upset with mother or grandmother, or whoever. "You mad? You've got the same clothes to get glad in!" You just can't GIVE A DAMN who might be offended. If it is your intention to cause offense, then you're probably a "bad guy". If it wasn't your intention to give offense, then just fuct whoever took offense.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:51PM
Marijuana Pepsi, on the other hand, is a person. [npr.org]