From WaPo:
Iancu v. Brunetti is a trademark dispute in which Los Angeles artist Erik Brunetti sued the government, saying it violated the First Amendment by refusing to register the trademark for his “subversive” clothing line: FUCT.
And the government’s position?
The government argues that the appeals court got it wrong. Registering a trademark is a benefit, Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco wrote in his brief, not a restriction on speech. Brunetti has called his clothing line FUCT since 1990 and may continue to do so.
Brunetti is not being penalized for his viewpoint, Francisco says. The government’s decision is based on content and evidence that the trademark “would be perceived as equivalent to the vulgar word for which it is a homonym.”
I’m sitting here trying to see what compelling government interest dictates that an application for a trademark on a near-homonym be denied. What damage will be done if this trademark is permitted?
If it’s so offensive, the public won’t buy the trademark owner’s products, and the issue will be closed. If the public doesn’t desert the owner’s products, then it’s clear that the public officials attempting to deny the trademark application are clearly not connected to the public sense of proper decorum.
Either way, the law is superfluous, and while it may not be a violation of the First Amendment, it is damn silly.
