|
Post by pacinoyes on Jun 29, 2019 13:04:44 GMT
I find this strangely amusing and think trademarking items could be a good opportunity for me in the future and also others who are eagerly awaiting the inevitable Pornify 2019 Movie Titles Thread......... "The case was brought by clothing designer Erik Brunetti, who sought to trademark the phrase FUCT. The decision paves the way for him to get his brand trademarked. The court, like others, struggled with how to deal with the word — in particular, its pronunciation. Here's how Justice Elena Kagan described it in her majority opinion: The clothing brand "is pronounced as four letters, one after the other: F-U-C-T. ... But you might read it differently and, if so, you would hardly be alone."www.npr.org/2019/06/24/732512169/supreme-court-strikes-down-ban-on-trademarking-immoral-scandalous-words-symbols
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Jun 29, 2019 13:59:30 GMT
What the Fyookt* as per Kagan's caveat.
I haven't read the law itself, but going by the article, I'm with the majority on this one (sorta). From the examples cited, it seems to me that the government has the power to deny something scandalous based on whatever it feels like. That said, in this particular case... Sotomayor is right, Brunetti's line name is clearly in violation of the law as written.
So ya. I don't feel too strongly either way.
|
|
|
Post by countjohn on Jun 29, 2019 21:50:58 GMT
Saying you can't trademark something because it's obscene seems like a clear 1st Amendment violation. So probably a good call here.
|
|