Supreme Court to hear challenge to ban on profane trademarks
Andrei Mincov's commentary on the original article
It's good news, and hopefully, the old rule will be overturned to allow brand owners to trademark their brands - even if someone might be offended. Profane or not profane, if it functions as a trademark, that is, allows the market to tell your products and services from identical or similar products or services, then it should not be the government's role to critique if your brand is in good taste. So with this decision, the Supreme Court can not only get FUCT trademarked, it will actually bring us closer to the third and final chapter of a potential trilogy. First, SCOTUS ruled that disparaging terms could be trademarked. Now, it may rule that profane terms could be trademarked. Next, hopefully, it will rule that terms that relate to illegal activities could be trademarked, which would finally open the door to Federal registration of marijuana trademarks. When SCOTUS rules that trademark registration does not mean the government's endorsement of the message conveyed by the trademark, the next step is to recognize that trademark registration does not mean the government's endorsement of what the trademark owner does with the trademark. This way, a trademark that covers the manufacture and sale of marijuana products would not mean that the federal government allows the activity. It would just mean that no one else can use the brand to engage in such activity.