Facebook Twitter Flipboard Email. Justice Breyer had this question: Now the Supreme Court must decide. If he could get his brand trademarked, he could go after the copycats and shut them down. Accessibility links Skip to main content Keyboard shortcuts for audio player.
|License:||For Personal Use Only|
|iPhone 5, 5S resolutions||640×1136|
|iPhone 6, 6S resolutions||750×1334|
|iPhone 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus resolutions||1080×1920|
|Android Mobiles HD resolutions||360×640, 540×960, 720×1280|
|Android Mobiles Full HD resolutions||1080×1920|
|Mobiles HD resolutions||480×800, 768×1280|
|Mobiles QHD, iPhone X resolutions||1440×2560|
|HD resolutions||1280×720, 1366×768, 1600×900, 1920×1080, 2560×1440, Original|
Supreme Court Dances Around The F-Word In Case About “FUCT” Trademark : NPR
The trademark office had turned the vuct down, because it deemed the name racially “disparaging,” but the court said the denial amounted to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. How about “racial slurs”? 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.
Now the Supreme Court must decide. April 16, 5: Accessibility links Skip to main content Keyboard shortcuts for audio player.
Patent and Trademark Office acted unconstitutionally when it refused to grant trademark protection to the brand name. The justices pointed to a chart showing which terms had been granted trademarks by the government, and which ones had not. Patent and Trademark Office said no. Brunetti opened the line inaimed at somethings, and he has been trying to get the brand trademarked ever since.
FUCT® (@fuct) • Instagram photos and videos
The government, he maintained, can deny trademark protection for that word. 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.
Justice Breyer had this question: Facebook Twitter Flipboard Email.
But he said the term would still be shocking or offensive to a substantial segment of the population. Most of the names on the chart — those granted and not granted — are not suitable for a general audience.
The issue is whether the U. Supreme Court only occasionally. But the most offensive slur, the N-word, for now is still not approved, he said.
Dirty words make it to the U. If he could get fucf brand trademarked, he could go after the copycats and shut them down. That prompted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to ask how the trademark office defines what is scandalous, shocking or offensive.
Stewart replied that because of the court’s decision in the “Slants” case, most trademarks with racial fkct are now approved. 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.
Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed to the chart, declaring that it was hard to see why certain trademarks either using or alluding to profanity were approved and others denied.
And, for the justices, the immediate problem was how to discuss the the F-word without actually saying it. Probably not, conceded the government’s Stewart. Why doesn’t the government have the right to say, in essence, “You can use this language in your brand name, but the government doesn’t want to be associated with it by granting trademark protection? At the end of his argument, Sommer returned to the language of the statute, arguing that if “offensiveness” is the standard for turning down a trademark, guct ‘n Shake” can’t be registered either, because “a substantial portion of Americans believe that eating beef is immoral.
Justice Samuel Alito asked what would happen when “really dirty words” were at issue. Thus, it can be denied trademark registration, he argued.