FUCT fashion label takes its scandalous trademark case to supreme court


for owner Brunetti argue he is being refused trademark protection because of labels vulgar name

Erik Brunetti

On Monday, the supreme will hear from a label which says it has been unfairly treated because of its vulgar name. Lawyers for , owner of the , will challenge the provisions of federal law that allows for immoral or scandalous matter to be refused trademark protection.

Brunetti has run the -based brand since 1991. He believes his amendment are being infringed. Based on recent decisions, he have a good case.

In 2017, the court ruled in favor of the Slants, an Asian American rock band who had had a trademark filing denied years before.

Giving offense is a viewpoint, Justice Samuel Alito wrote. We have said and again that the expression of may not be prohibited merely because the are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.

Referencing that decision, Brunettis lawyers said in court filings that is no principled to reach a different result than this court reached as to the disparagement clause.

Also in 2017, the US court of appeals for the federal circuit ruled in Brunettis favor.

We hold that the [] against immoral or scandalous marks is unconstitutional because it violates the first amendment, found.

There are and images that we do not wish to be confronted with, not as , nor in the marketplace. The first amendment, , protects private expression, even private expression which is offensive to a substantial composite of the general public.

The , she wrote, had failed to show any relevant or pressing reason for speech.

As in the Slants case, the will argue Brunetti is not being restricted from using or profiting from the brand name, but rather being denied any added benefits of trademark protections.

The scandalous-marks provision is not a restriction on speech, the , Noel Francisco, wrote in a court filing. Rather, it is a condition on the availability of government benefits.

Between 2003 and 2015 the US government rejected nearly 2,000 trademark that were deemed immoral or scandalous , according to a study by the University law professors and Barton Beebe, who have filed a brief on Brunettis behalf. They argue that the decision-making process in such cases is inconsistent and often arbitrary.

Awaiting the ruling, the trademark office has suspended the cases of vulgar applicants among them the bands Riot and Thunderpussy.

Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us

Related posts