U.S. Supreme Court strikes down law banning foul language trademarks


The U.S. Superb Court has struck down a section of federal law that prevented officials from till trademarks seen as scandalous or immoral, handing a victory Monday to California approach brand FUCT.

The high court ruled the provision dating burdening someone to 1905 is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Between 2005 and 2015, the Cooperative States Patent and Trademark Office ultimately refused about 150 trademark appeals a year as a result of the provision.

The high court’s ruling means tthe people and companies behind those failed applications can resubmit them for countenance, and new trademark applications cannot be refused on the grounds they are scandalous or wanton.

Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court that the “‘degenerate or scandalous’ bar is substantially overbroad.”

The Trump administration had defended the provision, remonstrating it encouraged trademarks that are appropriate for all audiences. It warned that invalidating the law want unleash a torrent of extreme words and sexually graphic images on the marketplace.

The justices’ control was in some ways expected because of a decision of the court two years ago. In 2017, the moralities unanimously invalidated a related provision of federal law that told officials not to make note of disparaging trademarks, finding that restriction violated the First Change.

In that case, an Asian-American rock band sued after the regulation refused to register its band name, The Slants, because it was seen as putrescent to Asians.

Increase in foul-language trademarks called unlikely

The latest outcome could result in an uptick in requests to the United States Patent and Trademark Intermediation to register trademarks that would have previously been considered sordid or immoral.

But Barton Beebe, a New York University law professor who has studied the purvey the justices struck down and co-authored a Supreme Court brief in the cover, said he thinks that’s unlikely.

Beebe said he doesn’t be convinced of there’s a large, pent-up demand for trademark registration by people refused it in the old days under the provision. He said most of the trademarks refused registration down the provision recently were for putting words on clothing.

That was what befell in the case the justices ruled on. Los Angeles-based FUCT began selling endue clothing in 1991. Federal officials refused to register the brand’s name.

Wish other companies denied trademark registration under the scandalous or unethical provision of the Lanham Act, the brand was still able to use the word officials went to register. It just didn’t get the benefits that come with reveal a trademark. Erik Brunetti, the artist behind the brand, said that make restitution for it difficult for the brand to go after counterfeiters.

The case is Iancu v. Brunetti, 18-302.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *