The new ruling from the Supreme Court protecting vulgar patents is a win for free speech
by Adam Carrington
June 26, 2019 12:43 PM The Supreme Court’s June 24 decision Iancu v. Brunetti centers around a case that’s hard to describe, but not due to its legal complexity. Instead, this litigation is difficult to discuss because it involves language we usually try to avoid in polite company. The petitioner was Erik Brunetti, the founder of a clothing line. He named his brand using a combination of letters that, when read together, sound just like the past tense of the F-word.
Brunetti sought trademark protection for his company name with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, but it denied the patent. It did so under a provision of the Lanham Act that stipulates no trademarks shall be granted that contain “immoral†or “scandalous†matter.
In Iancu, the Supreme Court decided that this part of the Lanham Act violated the First Amendment’s protections for free speech. As far as content is concerned, the majority opinion said the First Amendment barred any governmental restrictions, declaring that “government may not discriminate against speech based on the ideas or opinions it conveys.â€
<..snip..>
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/the-supreme-courts-new-ruling-protecting-vulgar-patents-is-a-win-for-free-speech
