[ad_1]
One of the most versatile profanations of the English language was at the center of the debate in the US Supreme Court on Monday.
But the nine members of the court and the lawyers who pleaded the case were able to avoid pronouncing the word – or the company's name, FUCT, which is its phonetic equivalent – during a conversation of the day. One hour on the question of whether to repeal a federal law on trademarks. the government refuses to register brands considered immoral or scandalous.
This action was the basis for the US Patent and Trademark Office's rejection of Erik Brunetti's 2011 application for registration of the name of his trademark, which was later confirmed by Erik Brunetti. Trade Marks and Remedies Tribunal.
Subsequently, Brunetti brought the case before the US Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that the federal government had correctly ruled the mark (pronounced as the word "fucked") outrageous , while asserting that the law in question violated the constitutional protection of freedom of expression.
Instead of referring directly to Brunetti, judges and Supreme Court lawyers opted on Monday for euphemistic references or spoke of crude language and sexually explicit material.
Malcolm Stewart, a Justice Department attorney who was advocating for the Trump government, termed the FUCT "profane past participle equivalent of a well-known word of blasphemy and perhaps the paradigmatic word of our coat of arms ".
Chief Justice John Roberts, for his part, called it "vulgar word at the heart of the case".
But the motivation behind the FUCT name has not been lost for at least some of the judges.
"Come on, be serious," Judge Samuel Alito told John Sommer, who had pleaded the case on behalf of Brunetti. "You know what he's trying to say."
The courts seemed divided on whether the provision in question, which had been in existence for more than a century, violated Brunetti's right to freedom of expression.
Judge Stephen Breyer appeared particularly concerned that a decision favorable to Brunetti would open the door to marks containing racial slurs, which could then be displayed on advertisements in buses or newsstands.
"Very often the word in your case and the racial discourse is not a point of view," said Breyer. "It's used to insult someone, a bit like fighting words, or to draw attention to yourself."
But other members of the nine-member court acknowledged that the law was broad and inconsistently applied by the Patent and Trademark Office.
According to Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg, some trademark applications were rejected for two reasons: because the marks were outrageous and because they looked like trademarks already registered.
"If the mark is already registered," said Ginsburg, "then it's not outrageous."
The US Patent and Trademark Office, for example, has refused to register FUCT, but has cleared FCUK, the acronym for French Connection, a clothing chain based in the UK.
Judge Neil Gorsuch asked how a "reasonable citizen" is supposed to know how the government will treat its brand.
"Is it a coin?" He asked.
The wording of the law is "very broad," said Judge Elena Kagan, who suggested that the dilemma could be addressed in a legislative fashion.
"If Congress wants to adopt a more restrictive law, focused on vulgarity or profanity, Congress can do it," she said.
The Trump administration claims that by refusing to approve trademark applications containing scandalous or immoral information, the government "protects reluctant viewers from information they find offensive".
A decision of the judges is expected by the end of June.
[ad_2]
Source link