From the petition to the Supreme Court in Iancu v. Brunetti
Even [trade]marks that reference the indisputably vulgar term “fuck,” like the mark at issue here, are not always rejected as a matter of course. The PTO registered the mark FCUK, but rejected the marks FUCT and F**K PROJECT as scandalous. It allowed the registration of MUTHA EFFIN BINGO, Reg. No. 4,183,272, and IF WE TOUCH IT, IT’S FN GOLDEN, Reg. No. 4,100,978, but not F ALL F’S APPAREL FOR THE F’N ANGRY, Appl. No. 78,420,315.
See, e.g., FUCK HEROIN, Appl. No. 86,361,326; FUCK CANCER, Appl. No. 86,290,011; FUCK RACISM, Appl. No. 85,608,559. It can put forth a political view, see DEMOCRAT.BS, Appl. No. 77,042,069, or REPUBLICAN.BS, Appl. No. 77,042,071.
We have seen from the dictionary definitions of record that “fucked” and its phonetic twin, “fuct,” are both vulgar terms. Whether one considers “fucked” as a sexual term, or finds that Applicant has used “fucked/fuct” in the context of extreme misogyny, nihilism or violence, we have no question but that these are still extremely offensive terms in the year 2014. That there has been a U.S. band performing and recording under the name “Fucked Up” is irrelevant to our determination. Similarly, that the United States Patent and Trademark Office may have issued trademark registrations where the composite mark contained the word “Screwed” is also of no moment in our determination of whether the terms “fucked/fuct” are scandalous.This entry was originally posted at https://ymarkov.dreamwidth.org/499015.html. Please comment there using OpenID.