The US Supreme Court will weigh in on swearing as opposed to slang in trademarks. File photo/ AFP
The US Supreme Court takes up on Monday the government’s refusal to register a trademark by a clothing line named “Fuct,” and arguments should be, well, salty.
The case pits a provision of US trademark law that allows the government to deny requests on the basis of “immoral” or “scandalous” words against the bedrock principles of free speech enshrined in the Constitution.
It all started with provocateur, artist and designer Erik Brunetti, who founded the streetwear brand in 1990. It rhymes with plucked.
Under the label, he has since freely sold clothing with anti-religious, anti-government slogans and motifs, often parodying pop culture.
But in 2011, authorities refused to register “Fuct” at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), citing a provision that dates back to 1905.
Brunetti, feeling that his rights had been violated, took his fight to the courts.
In December 2017, a federal appeals court ruled in his favor. According to its findings, the law invoked violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution that guarantees free speech.
But the administration of President Donald Trump then asked the top bench to give a final ruling on the matter.
The provision in question “does not restrict respondent’s ability to express himself, through use of his mark or otherwise, but simply denies him the advantages associated with federal trademark registration,” the US administration has argued.
“The board concluded that the mark was vulgar and therefore unregistrable.”
Yet vulgarity plays an important role in society, according to the Cato Institute, which has backed Brunetti in the fight.
“A sentence like, ‘Will you pick up your dog’s shit, and stop him from pissing on my roses!’ would not mean the same thing if the profanity were replaced by politesse,” the libertarian think tank argued.
And the 1905 law is applied in a “systematically inconsistent and arbitrary way,” said law professors Barton Beebe and Jeanne Fromer in an argument transmitted to Supreme Court.
They note, for example, that the fashion brand PHUC — which sounds the same as the swear word in question — got a trademark.
Censorship of ideas?
The way Brunetti sees it, the seemingly capricious nature of authorities’ decision-making is a way to censor ideas they dislike — noting that the USPTO in its rejection of his application stated he had sold clothes with “revolutionary themes, proudly subversive graphics and in-your-face imagery.”
“His assaults on American culture critique capitalism, government, religion and pop culture,” it added.
Brunetti has asked the Supreme Court to apply the same reasoning it did in a 2017 case when it ruled that an Asian-American band could trademark its name “The Slants” despite its racist connotations.
“We have said time and again that ‘the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers,’” Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito wrote in that ruling, citing previous decisions.
“Wow! Big VICTORY on the Wall,” Trump tweeted in reaction to the ruling, which boosts his ability to fulfill a major campaign promise to construct the massive barrier.
The court said the rule, which requires most immigrants who want asylum to first seek safe haven in a third country through which they traveled on their way to the United States, could go into effect as litigation challenging its legality continues.
A New Delhi court this week dealt a blow to the US firm by revoking a previous court decision that effectively blocked the deal, and Amazon has filed an appeal against it in the Supreme Court in the capital city, the three sources said.
On November 23, researchers discovered a new "abnormally multiple mutations. Some of the mutations are already known and affect transmissibility and immune evasion, but many more are new.
An official source from the Saudi Interior Ministry said: “It has been decided to allow direct entry of travellers from all countries, for all those who have received a dose of the from 4/12/2021, provided that institutional quarantine procedures are applied to them for three days.”
The amendments offer special benefits for people of determination in order to enhance their benefit and participation in this vital sector.
Any couple conceiving a child out of wedlock will be required to marry or singly or jointly acknowledge the child and provide identification papers and travel documents in accordance with the laws of the country of which either is a national, considering the applicable laws of that nation. Failing this, a criminal case would introduce a prison term of two years for both correspondents.