SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 3, Informative) by butthurt on Saturday October 01 2016, @03:40PM
The UK has a similar prohibition:
Marks which offend this section of the Act fall broadly into three types: those with criminal connotations, those with religious connotations and explicit/taboo signs. Marks offending public policy are likely to offend accepted principles of morality, e.g. illegal drug terminology, although the question of public policy may not arise against marks offending accepted principles of morality, e.g. taboo swear words.
Anyone can challenge such trademarks in court; this happened with the trademark "FCUK" which had been granted to French Connection Limited, a chain of clothing shops. The trademark was upheld:
[...] the intrinsic qualities of the mark FCUK are not such as to render it objectionable. It is not the swear word even though it can be used, and has been used, to evoke the swear word. Accordingly the generally accepted moral principle prohibiting the use of swear words does not apply to it.
-- http://camtrademarks.com/index.php?q=node/28 [camtrademarks.com]