U.S. justices watch their language as they consider profane trademarks




  • In US
  • 2019-04-15 17:40:14Z
  • By By Lawrence Hurley

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - (Editor's note: contains language that some readers may find offensive, paragraphs 2, 10, 14)


U.S. Supreme Court justices tiptoed around the offensive word at the center of a closely watched free speech case on Monday as they considered a challenge to a federal law that restricts trademarks on "immoral" and "scandalous" words and symbols.

The nine justices heard about an hour of arguments in a case involving Los Angeles-based clothing designer Erik Brunetti's streetwear brand "FUCT," which sounds like a profanity but is spelled differently.

The F-word word in question, which Justice Department lawyer Malcolm Stewart called "the equivalent of the past participle form of the paradigmatic profane word in our culture," was not uttered openly in the famously decorous courtroom. Justice Stephen Breyer merely called it "the word at issue."

Some justices signaled reservations about striking down the provision in U.S. trademark law, which has been on the books for more than a century.

They appeared particularly concerned about limiting the government's ability to withhold trademarks featuring the most offensive words, including racial slurs.

But other justices indicated that the law is written so broadly that it violates free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. The court could well follow the course it took in 2017 when it struck down a similar law forbidding the registration of "disparaging" trademarks in case involving an Asian-American dance rock band called The Slants, a name trademark officials deemed offensive to Asians.

Following that ruling, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has received trademark applications for "the single-most offensive racial slur" - likely meaning a racist word referring to black people - but has not acted on them while it awaits a ruling in this case, Stewart said.

Justice Elena Kagan said the argument by President Donald Trump's administration in defense of the law appeared to be based largely on a commitment that the government would ban only trademarks featuring the most offensive words.

"That's a strange thing for us to do, isn't it?" Kagan asked.

Justice Neil Gorsuch followed a similar line of questioning, wondering whether the trademark office's decisions on which trademarks to grant that feature offensive words are based on "the flip of the coin."

"I don't want to go through the examples. I really don't want to do that," Gorsuch added, steering clear of any profanities.


'OH, COME ON'

Justice Samuel Alito dismissed the suggestion by Brunetti's lawyer, John Sommer, that "FUCT" could be treated differently because it is not spelled the same as the word it sounds like.

"Oh, come on, be serious. We know what he is trying to say," Alito added.

A Washington-based federal appeals court ruled in Brunetti's favor in 2017. The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the conservative-majority Supreme Court, arguing that striking down that provision would unleash a torrent of extreme words and sexually graphic images on the marketplace.

Brunetti challenged the law on free speech grounds. Having a federally registered trademark would make it easier for him to protect his brand against counterfeiters.

When the FUCT trademark application, filed in 2011, was denied, the trademark office said the brand would be perceived as the phonetic equivalent of the profanity, observing that Brunetti's products contained sexual imagery, misogyny and violence.

Brunetti said the brand's name is clever because people think it is pronounced as a profanity. The acronym, he added, also means "Friends U Can't Trust."

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which specializes in intellectual property, ruled in Brunetti's favor, it acknowledged that it was "not eager" to see vulgar trademarks proliferate. But it criticized the government's attempts to police them and said the law has been applied unevenly.

A ruling is due by the end of June.


For a graphic on major Supreme Court cases this term, click https://tmsnrt.rs/2V2T0Uf


(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung)

COMMENTS

More Related News

NRA, gun rights groups using New York City rules to seek expansion of Second Amendment in Supreme Court
NRA, gun rights groups using New York City rules to seek expansion of Second Amendment in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has refused for nearly a decade to jump back into the gun rights debate, declining at least eight opportunities in recent years.

Mississippi judge who blocked 15-week abortion ban hears arguments on fetal heartbeat law
Mississippi judge who blocked 15-week abortion ban hears arguments on fetal heartbeat law

Mississippi's fetal heartbeat law which bans abortions after approximately six weeks could be blocked or upheld by Judge Carlton Reeves.

Hundreds gather at U.S. Supreme Court to protest state abortion bans as step backward
Hundreds gather at U.S. Supreme Court to protest state abortion bans as step backward

Many of the restrictions are intended to draw legal challenges, which religious conservatives hope will lead the nation's top court to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that established a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. "We are not going to allow them to move our country backward," U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar, one of the two dozen Democrats running for president, told the crowd through a megaphone. The rally is one of scores scheduled for Tuesday around the country by the American Civil Liberties Union, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Planned Parenthood Action Fund and other abortion rights group.

US abortion rights activists to protest
US abortion rights activists to protest 'attack' on access

Demonstrations were planned across the United States on Tuesday in defense of the right to abortion, which activists see as increasingly under attack. The "Day of Action" rallies come after the state of Alabama last week passed the country's most restrictive abortion ban, prohibiting the procedure in all cases -- even rape and incest -- unless the mother's life is at risk. While the measure in Alabama is seen as particularly Draconian, it is among about 14 states which have adopted laws banning or drastically restricting access to abortion, according to activists.

U.S. Supreme Court takes no action in Indiana abortion cases
U.S. Supreme Court takes no action in Indiana abortion cases

Neither Indiana case was on the list of appeals on which the court acted on Monday morning. If the nine-justice court takes up either case, it would give the conservative majority an opportunity to chip away at the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide and recognized a right under the U.S. Constitution for women to terminate pregnancies. One of the Indiana laws requires fetal remains to be buried or cremated and bans abortions performed because of fetal disability or the sex or race of the fetus.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: US

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.