US Supreme Court to hear case on vulgar trademarks
The case pits a provision of US trademark law that allows the government to deny requests on the basis "immoral" or "scandalous" words against the bedrock principles of free speech enshrined in the Constitution.
A date of hearing has not yet been fixed. But it's a safe bet no case before it will have exposed the nation's top judges to so many profanities.
The street wear brand was founded in 1990 by Los Angeles-based designer Erik Brunetti.
The name sounds like, but is spelled differently from, the past tense form of a common swear word.
Brunetti tried to formally register it in 2011 but was refused under the so-called scandalous-marks provision of trademark law.
In its brief, the government argues the contested legal provision "does not restrict any speech or restrain any form of expression." Rather, it "simply reflects Congress' judgment that the federal government should not affirmatively promote the use of graphic sexual images and vulgar terms by granting them the benefits of registration."
In 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that an Asian American band could trademark its name "The Slants," which had been rejected because it was deemed a racial slur. AFP
(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Download The Devdiscourse News App for Latest News.
- READ MORE ON:
- PRIMA AFP
- AFP Integra
- AFP Habitat
- Legal case
- Index case
- Supreme court
- United States Constitution
- past tense form
- federal government
- vulgar trademarks
- contested legal provision
- so-called scandalous-marks provision of trademark law
- vulgar terms
- form of expression
- current administration of President Donald Trump
- US Supreme Court