well, it's FUCT FTW!

[Celerity]

'Immoral' Trademarks Like 'FUCT' Are Allowed, Divided US Supreme Court Says

https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/06/24/immoral-trademarks-like-fuct-are-allowed-divided-us-supreme-court-says/

A divided U.S. Supreme Court on Monday said the First Amendment prohibits the U.S. government from denying intellectual property protection to “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks, such as the name of the clothing line “FUCT” that was in the case before the justices.

Ruling in Iancu v. Brunetti, the justices said the Lanham Act, which bans registration of “immoral … or scandalous matter,” violates the free speech rights of clothing designer Erik Brunetti.

“There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the 6-3 majority.

The court’s decision followed the court’s trend of ruling in favor of free speech. Just two years ago, in Matal v. Tam, the court ruled that disparaging marks could not be denied registration under the Lanham Act.

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. dissented in part, asserting that “standing alone, the term ‘scandalous’ need not be understood to reach marks that offend because of the ideas they convey; it can be read more narrowly to bar only marks that offend because of their mode of expression—marks that are obscene, vulgar, or profane.”



FUCT’s Erik Brunetti Talks Censorship & Building a Brand in New Interview

https://www.highsnobiety.com/p/fuct-erik-brunetti-interview/

FUCT‘s Erik Brunetti has never been one to mince words and in his recent interview with Jenkem Magazine He spoke frankly about his thoughts on Supreme, brand authenticity, high fashion collaborations, and PC culture. We’ve pulled some of the most illuminating and provocative quotes from the interview to give a sense of where FUCT is going and what Brunetti thinks of his peers.

Take a look below.

On what his recent Supreme Court win means for FUCT

“I’ll be able to shut down the tremendous amount of bootlegging that’s been happening for years. It will also enable me to eventually sell the brand if I so choose. In regards to other brands, it’s going to allow Jason Dill to register his brand [Fucking Awesome]. Therefore he’d be able to expand from where they already are, for example.”

On the recent FUCT resurgence

“It’s not really a resurgence, it’s funny that people say that. I was primarily selling in Japan for the past eight years and it was too expensive to purchase product in the United States, therefore it was hard to get here. Shipping from Japan was $25. Now we’re back in the US completely so that’s why people may think, “FUCT’s back!” But we really never went away.”

On the name

“We wanted to start a graphic design company but we needed a name for it. We thought it would be clever to call the brand FUCT and present it [as] very corporate, so you had to question the pronunciation of the name based on the way it looked. It was very premeditated. We didn’t wanna just call it FUCT to make it look crazy. We wanted it to be confusing.”

snip

https://fuct.com/

[HAB911]

1. I guess the Washington Redskins will be with us forever?

[Celerity]

2. until they are sold it would seem so

I follow real football (London-raised, Blue is the Colour! KTBFFH), not American, but I am familiar with the controversy over that clearly racist team name. Sickening it still exists in 2019.

[jberryhill]

3. Oh, every demeaning racial epithet is on the table for trademark registration

[sir pball]

4. That (slur copyrights) was settled two years ago

Matal v. Tam is referenced in the OP; it was the case where a band was allowed to trademark their Asian slur name, "The Slants". That took care of any legal challenges to the Skins rather tidily.

I'm fine with this case, it's much broader, covering pretty much all "naughty" words. Should make political t-shirts more interesting at least…

[jberryhill]

5. I doubt it will make t-shirts any more interesting

This is not about everyone's right to freedom of speech. Quite the opposite. It is about the right of trademark registrants to enlist the government in efforts to PREVENT other people from engaging in speech in relation to defined goods or services.

Granting someone a trademark registration for "Fuck" for clothing, for example, merely allows that person to stop others from using that word on clothing.

[HAB911]

6. you are correct, thanks!