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: 2) by edIII on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:46PM
There is also the allegations alleged by two women, underage girls at the time (12-14), that were at Mr. Epstein's house. This is well documented and not unusual for Mr. Epstein. Mr. Trump visited him and according to the women, raped them. Mr. Epstein, finding out about it, punched the younger one in the face because "she was his to deflower".
I happen to believe them, and that most of the people visiting Mr. Epstein were taking advantage of all the young girls he had around him all the time. Including Alan Dershowitz who is quite vocal that he was never involved or saw anything going down.
It's not partisan either, but just rich powerful people that are caught up in this. If Bill Clinton was with Jeffrey Epstein for one of these parties, I would highly suspect he was abusing underage girls too.
This all lasted about a week in the news before the election was over. Those two women are most likely dead. Mr. Epstein got extremely unusual treatment by the DOJ, and hasn't been held accountable. I'm guessing because he has so much dirt on everyone, that nobody is willing to have that situation explode.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.