Posted on 01/13/2019 4:20:38 PM PST by jazusamo
A Supreme Court case to be heard this spring could have the justices dropping the F-bomb.
The justices last week agreed to hear a challenge to trademark law involving a clothing brand named “FUCT” — leaving court watchers wondering how the justices will handle oral argument.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office says the name appeared to be intended as a homonym for a vulgarity, and thus violates a federal law prohibiting “scandalous” trademarks. On that basis, PTO refused to register the trademark.
Designer Erik Brunetti sued and won the first round in court, but in an unusual move both he and the PTO asked the justices to take the case and settle things once and for all.
The high court agreed, setting up what’s likely to be a very entertaining session later this term.
“The very fact that it will be hard for the justices to even say the word is going to influence them,” said Curt Levey, president of the Committee for Justice. “The shock value probably will play some role.”
Just last term the justices broke new ground on trademark law, invalidating another part of trademark law that outlawed disparaging trademarks.
That case, Matel v. Tam, involved a band called “The Slants,” founded by an Asian-American who said he was trying to reclaim and defang a word that had been considered a slur.
The justices, in an 8-0 ruling, said trademarks are private speech, not government speech, so blocking trademarks infringed on Americans’ free speech rights. That same case also ended efforts to prevent the Washington Redskins football team from keeping its trademarks.
(Excerpt) Read more at outline.com ...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/13/erik-brunettis-fuct-clothing-brand-case-to-be-hear/
>>The justices last week agreed to hear a challenge to trademark law involving a clothing brand named “FUCT” — leaving court watchers wondering how the justices will handle oral argument.<<
Did anyone else laugh at that sentence?
Might be able to distinguish from Tam. Might not. Looking forward to the decision.
It’s speech.
It’s private business.
Leave them, the FUCT alone.
Yep, could go either way.
i agree, FUC* is “scandalous” speech
what better proof than all the DimOCraps have adopted that word as their very very favorite one of all 300,000 words in the English language
“Freedom of speech” means Freedom of Speech!! “Congress shall make NO LAW abridging that freedom. ZERO!!
"No Effen in the Court!"
Support Free Republic, Folks!
No one is saying you can’t say it.
They’re just saying you can’t trade mark it.
I also think how many put their brand name in large font on the front of their clothing products (i.e. PINK) and how many women will want to walk around with "FUCT" across their chests in bold letters?
“how many women will want to walk around with “FUCT” across their chests in bold letters?“
I’m betting tens of thousands.
L
If so, could be copyright infringement, regardless of the Supreme Court ruling.
FCUK — French Connection UK.
I believe there was a brouhaha over that name also.
There was a German immigrant family in my township in the ‘60’s. They had a boy and girl who went to my high school. The girl was named Kirsten and she was a class above me. The family’s last name was Kuhnt. Imagine if she started a clothing line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.