AutoInsuranceMM.Info – State farm health insurance – Scandalous/Shocking Trademark Applications
Erik Brunetti is not one step closer to being able to federally-register his vulgar and scandalous FUCT trademark for clothing; his portfolio of applications remain log jammed (here and here):
So, scandalous trademark applications are still on hold at the U.S. Trademark Office, since the government is now asking for the Supreme Court to reverse Brunetti. First prediction, check.
As you will recall, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Brunetti, struck down the scandalous and immoral bar on federal trademark registration, as a violation of Free Speech.
The government now contends that denying federal registration of scandalous or immoral matter does not constitute viewpoint discrimination, so Brunetti isn’t controlled by the Tam decision.
The scandalous and immoral registration bar has been applied since the 1905 Trademark Act, and “scandalous” is interpreted to mean, under current attitudes: shocking to the sense of propriety.
Putting aside whether much of anything in our current culture can be considered shocking, if it’s possible, doesn’t shocking content express a certain viewpoint, namely one with shock value?
And, if Justice Alito was right in Tam that the disparagement bar is a “happy talk clause,” then isn’t the scandalous bar a “tranquility clause,” appropriately and fully cleansing of any shock value?
Will the Supreme Court decide to review the Brunetti decision? I’ve predicted it won’t, but it should, so I’m hoping to be wrong, it would be priceless to see the Court address Section 7:
“Why did the Tam Court not acknowledge that a Certificate of Registration is issued by the USPTO, under authority of the Department of Commerce, “in the name of the United States of America,” under Section 7 of the Lanham Act, and instead proceed to mock the governmental speech argument without addressing or attempting to explain away this difficult fact?”
That drum we have been beating hard, so kudos to the government in pressing Section 7:
“Congress’s directve that the USPTO refuse federal trademark registration to vulgar words and lewd sexual images is consistent with those First Amendment principles. Congress legitimately determined that a federal agency should not use government funds to issue certificates ‘in the name of the United States of America’ conferring statutory benefits for use of vulgar words and lewd sexual images. 15 U.S.C. 1057(a). Although [Erik Brunetti] has a First Amendment right to use a vulgar word as a mark for his clothing line, he has no comparable right to require the government to register vulgar terms, issue registration certificates for them in the name of the United States, inscribe them on the USPTO’s Principal Register, and bestow valuable benefits on the markholders’ use of the terms in commerce.”
Even if it ends again, with the Free Speech argument prevailing, for reasons beyond my beliefs (here, here, and here), nevertheless it would be helpful for predicting the fate of other portions of the Lanham Act that are content-based and that have been called into question. Wait and see:
State farm health insurance