×
36 732
Fashion Jobs
TOO FACED
Account Executive - Manhattan, New York
Permanent ·
GIII APPAREL GROUP
Accounts Payable Coordinator
Permanent · New York
SALLY BEAUTY CORPORATE
Outside Sales Representative - Professional Beauty
Permanent · Mesa
SALLY BEAUTY CORPORATE
Dbe Barber Account Executive
Permanent · New York
SALLY BEAUTY CORPORATE
Dbe Barber Account Executive
Permanent · Nashville
SALLY BEAUTY CORPORATE
Outside Sales Representative - Professional Beauty
Permanent · Eugene
SALLY BEAUTY CORPORATE
District Manager
Permanent · Winston-Salem
SALLY BEAUTY CORPORATE
Outside Sales Representative - Professional Beauty
Permanent · Reno
CENTRIC BRANDS
Associate, Account Executive - Los Angeles (Hudson)
Permanent · Los Angeles
CENTRIC BRANDS
Area Manager - Bcbg - Texas
Permanent · New York
CENTRIC BRANDS
Senior Analyst - m&a - Business Development
Permanent · New York
CENTRIC BRANDS
Sales Manager, Bcbg - Division - Fashion Valley 624
Permanent · San Diego
ULTA BEAUTY
Prestige Sales Manager-Alabaster Promenade
Permanent · Alabaster
ULTA BEAUTY
Prestige Sales Manager-Shoppes of Mentor
Permanent · Mentor
ULTA BEAUTY
Prestige Sales Manager-Marshall's Plaza
Permanent · DeWitt
ULTA BEAUTY
General Manager-Lincoln Square
Permanent · Arlington
ULTA BEAUTY
Prestige Sales Manager-Water Tower Place
Permanent · West Des Moines
ULTA BEAUTY
Prestige Sales Manager-Ocean County Mall
Permanent · Toms River
ULTA BEAUTY
Retail Sales Manager-Water Tower Place
Permanent · West Des Moines
ULTA BEAUTY
Retail Operations Manager-Ocean County Mall
Permanent · Toms River
ULTA BEAUTY
Retail Operations Manager-Firewheel Town Center
Permanent · Garland
ULTA BEAUTY
Retail Sales Manager-Ocean County Mall
Permanent · Toms River

Supreme Court to hear challenge to ban on profane trademarks

By
Reuters
Published
today Jan 7, 2019
Reading time
access_time 2 minutes
Share
Download
Download the article
Print
Click here to print
Text size
aA+ aA-

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether a federal law that blocks trademarks for brand names or logos bearing profane words or sexual imagery violates free speech rights in a case involving a clothing brand called “FUCT.”


Photo: FUCT



The justices will hear the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s appeal of a lower court decision that the agency should have allowed fashion designer Erik Brunetti to trademark the “FUCT” brand name, which sounds like, but is spelled differently than, a profanity.

At issue is a provision of U.S. trademark law that lets the trademark office deny requests for trademarks on “immoral” and “scandalous” words and symbols, and whether the law violates the guarantee of free speech enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Trademark registrations enable entrepreneurs and companies to protect their brands and bring lawsuits against copycat products.

The Supreme Court in 2017 unanimously struck down a similar ban on derogatory trademarks in a case involving a Asian-American dance-rock band called The Slants, also on First Amendment grounds. That case involved a law blocking federal trademarks for messages that may disparage people, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.

The Patent and Trademark Office in 2014 denied a request by Brunetti for a trademark on FUCT, saying the trademark would be perceived as equivalent to the profanity it sounds like. Brunetti appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which found that the ban “impermissibly discriminates based on content in violation of the First Amendment.”

The agency asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, arguing that “the First Amendment does not prohibit Congress from making vulgar terms and graphic sexual images ineligible for federal trademark registration.”

The agency argued that, unlike the ban on disparaging trademarks struck down by the high court in 2017, the provision relating to vulgar terms was “viewpoint neutral” and therefore lawful.

The high court’s willingness to hear the new case suggests some of the justices are receptive to that argument, said Sarah Burstein, a professor of intellectual property law at the University of Oklahoma. Burstein said the high court has provided limited legal protections for obscene material in other contexts.

“I’m very skeptical the court took the case just to pat the Federal Circuit on the head and say, ‘Job well done,’” Burstein said.

A Patent and Trademark Office spokesman declined to comment.

John Sommer, a lawyer for Brunetti, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

© Thomson Reuters 2019 All rights reserved.