Friday, April 19, 2024

SCOTUS to decide whether “FUCT” gets trademark registration

A year and half ago SCOTUS decided that “disparaging” brands could obtain federal trademark protection. Now SCOTUS will decide whether “lewd” or “vulgar” brands can also obtain the same perks and privileges.

The US Patent and Trademark Office defines “scandalous” marks as those that a substantial composite of the general public would find “‘shocking to the sense of truth, decency, or propriety; disgraceful; offensive; disreputable; .?.?. giving offense to the conscience or moral feelings; .?.?. or calling out for condemnation.”

I agree with Ilya Shapiro regarding this type of government intervention,

The Supreme Court should recognize that trademarks are in no way official speech and reaffirm that the government may not put its thumb on the scale to push controversial viewpoints out of the public square. Everyone who sometimes finds himself lumped into a “basket of deplorables” – now, that’s a great band name! – should hope that the court lets the people judge for themselves what’s derogatory.

If we’re correct, seems likely SCOTUS will follow their Matal v. Tam decision. So what about “Pho Keene Great”?


Tags: , , , , , , , ,


No comments so far.

Clancco, Clancco: The Source for Art & Law,, and Art & Law are trademarks owned by Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento. The views expressed on this site are those of Sergio Muñoz Sarmiento and of the artists and writers who submit to They are not the views of any other organization, legal or otherwise. All content contained on or made available through is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice and no attorney-client relationship is formed, nor is anything submitted to treated as confidential.

Website Terms of Use, Privacy, and Applicable Law.

Switch to our mobile site