Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Scandalous Trademark Registrations

[47of74]

Some interesting news

Quote

Throughout the history of the United States, the government has policed morality of its citizenry in both subtle and obvious ways. On Monday, the Supreme Court tackled one of the more subtle forms of rectitude — a nearly century-old prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. In its decision, the high court held that the refusal by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to accept the registration of "FUCT" amounted to viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"FUCT" is the clothing line founded by Erik Brunetti, who took on trademark examiners after being turned away. In December 2017, he got the the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to hold that the Lanham Act's ban on immoral or scandalous matter was unconstitutional. That seemingly opened the door to more registrations of f-bombs and other profane marks that could be associated with sponsors.

The Federal Circuit's 2017 decision came months after the Supreme Court opinion involving Simon Tam, the Asian American frontman of The Slants, who convinced a majority of justices to strike down a separate provision of the Lanham Act — one that looked down on the registration of disparaging marks.

The government's main contention was that the trademark registration program doesn't really restrict speech. To hold a trademark, meaning a word or phrase used to identify goods and services in commerce, one doesn't necessarily need to register. Doing so only provides certain advantages like good evidence of that trademark's validity. As such, the government framed registration as a subsidy for marks it wishes to promote rather than a restriction on marks that are excluded. In the Tam case, a majority of justices didn't come to a firm conclusion on that proposition. A plurality of justices led by Samuel Alito rejected the subsidy argument, but what ultimately carried the day two years ago was the conclusion in Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence that the ban on disparaging marks was a viewpoint-based restriction of speech.

Meanwhile 47 goes off to see if Fornicating Orange Bag of Douche & Asswipe can be trademarked...

[Briefly]

I'm glad that this has been struck down.  It is a very slippery slope to control, and I think we are already on very slippery ground as it is.  However, that does not mean that I think everything should be allowed or ok.  Such as racism, sexism, etc.  I'm not wording it to well.

[smittykins]

I totally get what you mean, @Briefly.  Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

[47of74]

I totally get what you mean, [mention=25602]Briefly[/mention].  Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

Well if one can trademark Orange Rapist Fuck Cannon and Shit Knob Weasel Douche they should do so.