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 …
In a previous job we used the excellent audio measuring sets made by Wayne Kerr Electronics... many's the time I've heard someone cry out "Where's the Wayne Kerr?"
(we also had some cheap 'equivalents' made by a rival company... they were known as 'Wayne Kerrs' for a different reason)
"oh it looks like a naughty word but it's actually not look at how clever we are here's a hint we're so clever"
Yep. It's like a 5 year old pushing the boundaries time after time trying to find out where the line actually is. Except these are adults who supposedly are capable of functioning in a normal society where most people generally accept the rules and aren't constantly pushing through the grey areas to find the line like the 5 year old. They are the sociopaths who force strict rules with defined "lines" on the rest of us so we end up with 1000's of petty little laws for highly specific acts instead of general laws we can all accept.
"The 1000s of petty little laws" is a result of large chunks of the USA being of Germanic/eastern european stock, culture, and religious nutjob tendencies (a result of centuries of warfare over what colour socks a certain arab was wearing one day on a hill - he was probably wearing sandals) despite being a common law country. They'd legislate blasphemy if they could. (some areas actually did). The rest of the world simply rolls their eyes and ignores people saying naughty words unless they're doing so whilst waving fists(or other things) around.
Say it aint so and I'll point to the factor that the proliferation of those laws (and morality enforcement) is strongest in areas of germanic+religious nutjob migration.
The real takeaway from this is that the Lanham Act has just been declared unconstitutional and that's been the go-to for meddling morality busybodies American Taliban types for _decades_. I can think of much more offensive behaviour in media or public places that US lawmakers won't touch - such as wearing swastikas and shouting "sieg heil", or wearing sheets and white pointy hats whilst carrying torches and waving bibles around.
It's time to invest in popcorn shares, because shit's about to get _very_ interesting in Middle America.
Except these are adults who supposedly are capable of functioning in a normal society where most people generally accept the rules and aren't constantly pushing through the grey areas to find the line like the 5 year old.
I don't think you understand the implications of the ruling.
The whole point of the ruling is that they did not break the rules. It is the USPTO who was breaking the rules (i.e. the constitution) by refusing the mark on scandalous or immoral grounds.
Furthermore, the business was free to use - and did - the FUCT trademark in business irrespective of what the USPTO said. All the USPTO does is register a trademark, which gives additional protections in the mark. Whether the USPTO accepts a mark for registration or not does not affect whether the mark exists under common law or can or can not be used.
In fairness to FC:UK, that brand isn't JUST a clever ploy to work around the naughty words list. The company was called French Connection, and was a UK company with overseas sections well before they started using the fcuk branding.
That said, they clearly were aware of the "controversial" element of the branding when they chose to use it publically.
FUCT?? Really, can we all grow younger ? Children use these words with regularity. The older WE get the more we avoid the *horrible* words that FUCT makes us supposedly think of. Just do it, don't say or think it. We get more and more hypocritical as we age. Just plain silly.
I don't see why this would result. All it does is let you trademark something like "New York Fucking City", it doesn't make consumers more likely to wear clothes that say that, or patronize a business called that. It just protects a SUCCESSFUL business selling such clothes or whatever from someone else stealing their idea. If you file a trademark for t-shirts that say that and no one buys them, then what difference did the trademark make?
All it does is let you trademark something like "New York Fucking City"
You already can, and always could, trademark "New York Fucking City" (unless someone else has it that is).
This decision just means that you can register the trademark with the USPTO. The USPTO is not an arbiter of what is and is not a trademark, it is only a registration body, and its powers are limited to registering or not registering a mark. And registration, or lack of, is not a determiner of whether a trademark is in fact a trademark or not, it merely grants extra benefits, which are usually only applicable in a court setting when sueballs are being flung around over a trademark.
All it takes to make a trademark is for you to declare you have a mark "<insert desired mark>". It is up to the courts to decide, via a challenge to the mark by someone else, whether the mark is valid or not. In this respect, the USPTO is not a source of truth, it is a source of expert testimony if you will. A court can overturn a registered mark as easily as an unregistered mark, or, as in this case, can affirm a registered mark as easily as affirm an unregistered one.
A number of aspects of US culture are stuck in the 17th or 18th century. Whilst this change will most appeal to people over there with the sense of humour of a five year old, it might help against the creeping Bowdlerisation of the English language that some of them seem to try on me.
"A number of aspects of US culture are stuck in the 17th or 18th century. "
This particular aspect ("new morality") is very much a late 19th-early 20th century thing - as is the Lanham Act.
The rose-coloured specs about our predecessors is a direct result of rigid censorship and rewriting by many prudish historians and authors - Tolkein's academic work on old english texts being one of the more egrarious examples of Bowdlerisation
It's ironic that "Bowdlerisation" is used, when he specifically targetted Shakespeare - and most of the bard's stuff the public are familiar with these days is what has been tampered with, not the originals.
one justices decision seemed to have fuck all to do with the law, and something to do with their own world view ?
"With the Lanham Act’s scandalous-marks provision, 15 U.S.C. §1052(a), struck down as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, the Government will have no statutory basis to refuse (and thus no choice but to begin) registering marks containing the most vulgar, profane, or obscene words and images imaginable."
Boo fucking hoo. Suck it up - it's what the founders intended. If they hadn't, you wouldn't have a first amendment.
Part of the analysis that goes into supreme court rulings involves considering the implications, the knock-on effects, of their ruling. This is one of the reasons it can take so long for them to make a ruling, there is a lot to consider.
A justice calling out the implications of a decision is part of what they are supposed to do whether you (or anyone else) agree or not with that analysis.
Funny that some people blame puritanical 'Mericans for this kind of thing.
The reality is that trademark law which denies protection to offensive trademarks is the same in most countries on earth - pretty much word-for-word actually.
There are a few notable exceptions such as Australia, where a trademark must be 'scandalous' before it can't be registered.
So, unsurprisingly, trademarks like "Pommie Basher" are ok.
Have fun searching for your favourite sweary trademarks on the IP Australia website
That's kind of the point of a tiered system of courts ruling on legislation and executive action. Checks and balances. The writer(s) of the Constitution knew there would be misinterpretation and outright muppetry and therefore put a system in place to limit it as much as possible. Unfortunately, there have been 200+ years of weasels enacting regulations, laws, rules, etc specifically to get around the original intent of the document - many of these have not been challenged through the courts and so have become entrenched. Sometimes the court system, including the SC, have own-goaled. Humans are nothing if not imperfect.
Most of the US government doesn't even know what it's laws are. There are so many that are simply garbage and left over cruft. It's a good reason why most laws really need an expiration date. Just don't get caught selling spaghetti with a diameter that isn't within the .06" to .11" legal range because that's a violation of Title 21, Section 139.110
The government can't ban 'FUCT'
The government wasn't trying to 'ban' FUCT, it was trying to refuse it registration. An unregistered trademark is still a trademark with all the benefits and responsibilities thereunder, including using it as a trademark, it just lacks the additional benefits of being a registered, vs unregistered, trademark. But it would still be a trademark that could still be used in commerce. It would take a judicial ruling to 'ban' the use of or overturn a trademark, which is not what this case was about. Again, it was about registration, not use or validity, of a trademark.
I am sure they won't miss my business. Personally, I just can't give that message out. For similar reasons I dont patronize the F-t B--t--d food outlet. It's a free country and there folks will be free of me. I guess I'm not in their demographic. I prefer my humour to be a bit more clever than that. And yes, I know I sound patronizing.... that's my right too!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
