Justices and Lawyers Sidestep Profanity in 'Scandalous' Trademark Case
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who was defending the constitutionality of the law, came up with the most creative way of describing the word without saying it.
April 15, 2019 at 03:05 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
U.S. Supreme Court justices and the lawyers arguing before them went out of their way Monday to avoid the four letters at the very core of the case of Iancu v. Brunetti: FUCT.
The issue in the First Amendment case was whether "FUCT," the name of Erik Brunetti's line of clothing, could be trademarked, or whether it would violate the Lanham Act, which bans registration of "immoral … or scandalous matter."
Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who was defending the constitutionality of the law, came up with the most creative way of describing the word without saying it. "This mark," Stewart said to the justices, "would be perceived by a substantial segment of the public as the equivalent of the profane past participle form of a well-known word of profanity and perhaps the paradigmatic word of profanity in our language."
Later he condensed that mouthful of alliterative words to: "the past participle form of the paradigmatic profane word in our culture." Stewart added, "It's hard to see what would be covered [by the law] if this is not."
Several justices seemed to search for a line that could be drawn to deny registration to some words without running afoul of the First Amendment. But justices were also aware that the momentum of pro-free speech decision-making by the court in recent years has made drawing that line difficult. Just two years ago, in Matal v. Tam, the court ruled that disparaging marks could not be denied registration under the Lanham Act.
As they struggled to find the line, the justices avoided uttering FUCT and related words themselves. Justice Elena Kagan called them "those words," and Justice Stephen Breyer sidestepped by saying, "Most people know what words we're talking about."
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who has two teenage children old enough to have heard if not spoken expletives, sympathized with the plight of "parents who are trying to teach their children not to use those kinds of words" who might see people wearing FUCT clothing while walking with their children in a shopping mall.
John Sommer, the California lawyer representing Brunetti, pledged beforehand in his brief that at oral argument, he would not utter the word that he wants to be trademarked. "It is not expected that it will be necessary to refer to vulgar terms during argument," Sommer wrote in a footnote.
Sommer kept his promise, though he spelled out similar words like FVCK and FCUK that have won trademark protection.
When Stewart said words like PHUC would be examined in context by the Patent and Trademark Office before deciding on whether it could be trademarked, Justice Neil Gorsuch made it clear he had had enough of the terminology.
"I don't want to go through the examples," Gorsuch exclaimed. "I really don't want to do that."
|Read more:
Don't Expect Profanities to Fly When Justices Hear 'FUCT' Trademark Case
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFTC Reaches Settlements With Two Companies on Claims of Selling Sensitive Location Data
Deluge of Trump-Leery Government Lawyers Join Job Market, Setting Up Free-for-All for Law Firm, In-House Openings
4 minute read'That Decision was Wrong:' Federal Judge Rethinks Consumer Protection Class Certification
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250