F%$#ing Fight for Your F%$#ing Right to Say F%$#

Street wear fashion house FUCT (Friends You Can't Trust) won a Supreme Court case where it was determined that the USPTO could not deny them a trademark because their name is, "Scandalous,"

It's actually a decision that I approve of.  If you are going to subsidize everyone else through the coercive power of the state, which is what the current IP regime is, you must do it for everyone.

That being when FUCT attempted to f%$#ing trademark the word "F%$#" for a line of jewelry, I am very glad that the f%$#ing Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) told the f%$#ing fashion house to go f%$# themselves.

F%$# belongs to all of us, and any f%$#ing f%$# who f%$#ing tries to f%$#ing take that f%$#ing word  away from uu can go f%$# themselves: 

I love this story so much I want it to find other similar vulgar stories so that those stories can have little baby vulgar stories for me to read. You may recall the saga of Erik Brunetti, founder of FUCT, a fashion brand with a name supposedly standing for Friends U Can’t Trust. We wrote about FUCT at first being denied a trademark on the brand over vulgarity concerns, a decision overturned on appeal on First Amendment grounds. It was a good ruling on the merits, as the government shouldn’t be in the business of saving our ears from naughty words based on its judgement of naughtiness.

Well, Brunetti is back at it again. He applied for a trademark on the word “f%$#” for a bunch of fashion categories, such as bags, jewelery, cell phone cases, and the like. That application too was denied. Brunetti again went to the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board, which upheld the denial of the application, but not over concerns for vulgarity. No, in a magical moment, instead the TTAB essentially suggested that “f%$#” is a word that belongs to all of us.

………

The function of a trademark is to identify a single source and to distinguish that seller’s goods from others, and the Trademark Act does not allow registration unless a proposed mark serves this function. The record before us establishes that the word F%$# expresses well-recognized familiar sentiments and the relevant consumers are accustomed to seeing it in widespread use, by many different sources, on the kind of goods identified in the F%$# Applications. Consequently, we find that it does not create the commercial impression of a source indicator, and does not function as a trademark to distinguish Applicant’s goods and services in commerce and indicate their source. Team Jesus, 2020 USPQ2d 11489, at *18-19. Consequently, Applicant cannot appropriate the term exclusively to itself, denying others the ability to use it freely. “‘[I]t is the type of expression that should remain free for all to use.’” Univ. of Kentucky v. 40-0, LLC, 2021 USPQ2d 253, at *36 (quoting Eagle Crest, 96 USPQ2d at 1230).

“[F%$#] is the type of expression that should remain free for all to use…” now there is something to put on a t-shirt.

(F%$# mine)

If anyone tries to take the word f%$# away from me, I and my f%$#ing legions will f%$#ing f%$# you up?  Understand mother-f%$#er?