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
Related Stories
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."
On Monday, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down two unanimous verdicts in favor of free speech. The first involved a dispute over "offensive" trademarks. Reason reports:
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-0 in favor of the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants, holding that the First Amendment protects the rights of the band's members to register a trademark in their band's "offensive" name.
At issue in Matal v. Tam was a federal law prohibiting the registration of any trademark that may "disparage...or bring...into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead." The Patent and Trademark Office cited this provision in 2011 when it refused to register a trademark in the name of The Slants, thereby denying the band the same protections that federal law extends to countless other musical acts. Justice Samuel Alito led the Court in striking down the censorious rule. "We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment," Alito wrote. "It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."
The Slants, a band composed of Asian performers, had sought to reclaim the slur against Asians by adopting the name themselves.
The other case involved sex offender Lester Packingham, originally convicted in 2001, who had been prosecuted for making a Facebook post in 2010 about being thankful for having a traffic ticket dismissed. A North Carolina law barred convicted sex offenders from a broad range of social media and web activities, leading Packingham to be arrested again. Again, the SCOTUS justices unanimously found the law to be an over-broad restriction of speech and overturned it 8-0.
In both cases, multiple concurring opinions were filed. The justices reached their conclusions for various legal reasons, but they all agreed that offensive speech should be protected and that even heinous acts like prior sex offenses do not deprive people of free speech.
SCOTUSblog has more detailed coverage:
Matal v. Tam: Court documents/commentary and opinion [PDF]
Packingham v. North Carolina: Court documents and analysis of the opinion [PDF]
Supreme Court Dances Around The F-Word With Real Potential Financial Consequences
Dirty words make it to the U.S. Supreme Court only occasionally. One of those occasions came Monday, in a case involving a clothing line named "FUCT." The issue is whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted unconstitutionally when it refused to grant trademark protection to the brand name. And, for the justices, the immediate problem was how to discuss the the F-word without actually saying it.
The "FUCT" clothing line, created by designer Eric Brunetti, is mainly hoodies, loose pants, shorts and T-shirts, all with the brand name prominently displayed.
[...] Brunetti's case got a boost two years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that an Asian-American band calling itself "The Slants" could not be denied trademark protection. The trademark office had turned the band down, because it deemed the name racially "disparaging," but the court said the denial amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Dealing with the brand name "FUCT" proved a bit more daunting in the Supreme Court chamber Monday. Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart referred to the brand name as a "profane past participle form of a well-known word of profanity and perhaps the paradigmatic word of profanity in our language."
Also at Reuters.
Previously: Two Unanimous SCOTUS Victories for Free Speech
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:20AM (2 children)
Buttfuckers
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:36AM (1 child)
SCOTUS 2077 [youtube.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:49AM
FTFY - because their fuckery [wikipedia.org] is supreme.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Funny) by SpockLogic on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:24AM (3 children)
So can we now look forward to seeing Stormy Daniels on her "FUCT TRUMP" t-shirt.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 3, Touché) by c0lo on Tuesday June 25 2019, @09:05AM (2 children)
Believe me, 'FUCT by Trump' will be a more popular brand.
Would Trump have business sense, he would register the trademark now and make more money than any "fragrance by Dior" or whatever exclusive fashion brand.
(large grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:31PM
With the ruling, I'm not sure we need to dance around the issue anymore.
"Grab her in the pussy" will be the polite thing to see on a shirt, full f-bomb "FUCKED" will replace "FUCT".
(shit-eating grin)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Wednesday June 26 2019, @12:26AM
I like that better. I can see it superimposed over a map of the USA.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:28AM (3 children)
Who will build us an ark?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:34AM
https://noahny.com/ [noahny.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by looorg on Tuesday June 25 2019, @12:42PM (1 child)
Like that would help, if you just take two of every animal isn't that just a massive recipe for inbreeding? Not to mention that I suspect that all the carnivores will just eat most of the smaller animals. The ark becomes more of a closed buffet.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday June 25 2019, @05:59PM
if you just take two of every animal isn't that just a massive recipe for inbreeding?
Don't be ridiculous! There's not nearly enough space in the fridge to take every animal. Where will I keep the foie gras and chocolate mousse?
As for the inbreeding, well, to each his own, I guess. I'm not sure how the diet would affect that.
Our buffets will have only the finest recipes! For carnivores and vegans alike.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:31AM (12 children)
This is Liberalism, isn't it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:37AM (2 children)
More like libertarianism.
Maybe Aristarchus can tell us about watching Rome fall over the centuries.
My take is it's time to get the permanent revolution started.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 25 2019, @07:51AM
Nah, mate, you're mistaken. Rome fell under them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:19PM
Rome fell over the centuries? I thought it fell over the centurions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @06:10AM (2 children)
Trump got elected as an economic liberal. He obviously does not share the morals of all the religious conservatives that had collected in the republican party.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday June 25 2019, @09:08AM (1 child)
Ahhh, now I understand where the trade-wars he engaged in come from.
(wait, wot?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @11:29AM
They aren't even a mated pair.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @01:49PM (5 children)
Two years ago you took a psychopath, con-man, sexual predator and child molester, basically the most disgusting public figure in the entire U.S. for the last several decades, and you made him President of the United States.
And you have the nerve to talk about "morality" ?!
What little morality you had left died that day, hypocritical whited sepulchres.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 25 2019, @02:21PM (4 children)
Child molester? I enjoy kicking the old douchebag around now and then, but child molester? Citations needed. Unlike Bill Clinton, he wasn't documented as taking sex vacations where children are on offer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:38PM (3 children)
Just ask Miss Teen USA pagent ex-contestants about when Trump used to barge in backstage when they were changing to harrass them...
He wasn't ? That's news to me. As for Bill Clinton, you must be referring to the golden-shower parties with underage prostitutes that well known pedophile Jeffrey Epstien used to organize on his private boat, where he invited many of his billionnaire friends, amongst which the aforementionned Bill Clinton, and also a certain Donald J. Trump...
Yes, that Donald Trump.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 25 2019, @03:43PM (1 child)
Trump did the boat thing? Didn't know that either. Miss Teen USA will qualify Trump as a pervert, but you must realize that doesn't qualify as pedo. Most, if not all, teens are post-puberty. That puts a man within the realm of humanity.
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:35PM
Is there anything holier than getting a golden shower from a Miss Teen USA contestant? After fucking her right in her bald pussy and tight asshole?
(Score: 3, Funny) by CZB on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:12AM (6 children)
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.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:18AM (2 children)
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
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
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)
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)
Someone choosing to not endorse your product is not censorship,
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Tuesday June 25 2019, @08:50PM
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?
(Score: 0, Redundant) by Subsentient on Tuesday June 25 2019, @04:25AM
HuuurrrruuuuuueghhahahahahhAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!! *wheeze* *hack* gah, hah. HAHAHAHAH!!!!!
Now nothing can stop me!
https://i.imgur.com/PUI6h5H.png [imgur.com]
https://i.imgur.com/CDUCawQ.jpg [imgur.com]
https://i.imgur.com/JbQgcMR.gifv [imgur.com]
I T B E G I N S N O W
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." -Jiddu Krishnamurti
(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]