Can Indecent Words Be Used As Trademarks? 30 Years Later, The Tide Brand FUCT Trademark Is Valid.

In June 24th, the Supreme Court of the United States rejected the prohibition of Patent and Trademark Office/PTO's "immoral" and "disgusting" indecent vocabulary in violation of freedom of speech.

The ruling of the US Supreme Court means that Erik Brunetti's street brand FUCT can use its brand name as a trademark. FUCT was founded in 90s by Erik Brunetti, a joint skateboard star Natas Kaupas, as the abbreviation for "Friends U Can" t Trust. However, when he applied for a registered trademark, he was rejected by the PTO trademark appeal and appeal board. The reason was that the brand displayed "strong and often straightforward sexual images of women, and a vulgar example of extreme hostility towards women".

Erik Brunetti subsequently applied for appeal, but was still rejected by the words "immoral" and "disgusting" in the trademark. It was not until 2011 that the court of appeal of the United States circuit court reversed the previous decision. In January this year, the Supreme Court said it would hear the case in April.

Federal registration can help trademark holders obtain trademark protection rights which are higher than those protected by state laws. Registration can grant applicants exclusive trademark rights, help win legal proceedings, and prevent potential competitors from infringement. Erik Brunetti said in an interview earlier that the Supreme Court's ruling would enable him to deal with frequent illegal manufacturing and trafficking in recent years and sell the brand in the future. "As for the impact on other brands, probably Jason Dill can register his brand F - Awesome, which can further expand the scale of business."

According to SCOTUS blogger, Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court justice, said: "the most basic principle of freedom of speech is that the government can not punish, oppose or exclude its statements based on ideas or opinions. The ban on "immoral" and "disgusting" violates this point.

Elena Kagan also points out that the ban is discriminatory from a certain point of view. "What is objectionable? It is contrary to the current social morality, which is discrimination. " She put forward an example: the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected the words "Agnus Dei (Lamb of God") and "Madonna" to be used in wine trade marks to avoid the objection of most Christians, but approved the game with "Praise the Lord" and "Jesus Died for You" for clothing. "Of course, these decisions are sensible, because the rejected trademarks offend most Americans."

Elena Kagan wrote in the court's opinion: "there are a lot of immoral and disgusting ideas on the global scale, even more than the number of bad words. Lanham Act covers all, and therefore violates the first amendment to the constitution of the United States (protection of freedom of speech and belief and peaceful assembly)." The injunction issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office was attributed to the Lanham Act (Lanham law / Federal Trademark Law), which was enacted in 1946.

The ruling of the supreme law was jointly decided by 9 liberal and conservative judges. 6 judges, including Elena Kagan, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Neil, agreed to reject it. Erik Brunetti lawyer John R. Sommer said in a statement: "the Supreme Court and many Americans are uncomfortable with Brunetti's trademark, but this is not a problem. The question is whether the government will impose moral views on the people and crack down on them when they find them offensive."

In a co operative opinion, Samuel Alito pointed out that Congress could adopt a "more detailed and professional regulations" to prevent gross trademark registration. He said that the brand name of Erik Brunetti "only used limited words to express emotions, without more meaning." But his point of view discrimination is "the poison of free society" is being criticized.

Judges Sonia Sotomayor, John Roberts and Stephen Breyer said that the court should retain restrictions on the "disgusting" vocabulary in the ban.

Sonia Sotomayor said: "the court's ruling today will lead to unfortunate results. The government no longer has the yardstick to refuse (no choice but to start) to register the most vulgar, asholy or obscene words and images imaginable.

John Roberts said: "the first amendment of the US Constitution protects the freedom of speech, but there is no provision that the government needs to provide help and comfort to those who use obscene, vulgar and profane expressions."

Stephen Breyer points out that "some conspicuous words" appear, especially in public places, which may lead to "quarrel" and even physical conflict. Think about it. Someone is wearing a piece or something with racial discrimination before your eyes. How do you react? "

However, the appeal of Erik Brunetti is more of a commercial appeal. "I am not doing this for other brands, but for my brand. If there is a brand to share my legal fees, I am willing to share the results with them. But my brand needs a brand. I've been waiting for nearly 30 years, and I'm very happy to get the logo.