Dirty words make it to the U.S. Supreme Court only occasionally. One of those occasions came Monday, in a case involving a clothing line named “FUCT.” The issue is whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted unconstitutionally when it refused to grant trademark protection to the brand name.
And, for the justices, the immediate problem was how to discuss the the F-word without actually saying it.The “FUCT” clothing line, created by designer Eric Brunetti, is mainly hoodies, loose pants, shorts and T-shirts, all with the brand name prominently displayed.
#SCOTUS rules that federal ban on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment, in challenge brought by designer who wanted to register the trademark for his FUCT clothing brand
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 24, 2019
NEW: in the case involving FUCT, a clothing brand, SCOTUS rules that a federal ban on immoral & scandalous trademarks is unconstitutional. It’s a Kagan 9-0 with partial dissents from Roberts, Sotomayor and Breyer. https://t.co/t32jVFUdyb
— Steven Mazie (@stevenmazie) June 24, 2019
BREAKING: #SCOTUS says man can trademark “FUCT” as part of a clothing line. Debate was whether 1st Am was violated by ban on “scandalous and immoral” trademarks. Ct says: yes.
— Shannon Bream (@ShannonBream) June 24, 2019
No census or gerrymandering opinion coming from Scotus today. Will know soon when next opinion day will be.
— Greg Stohr (@GregStohr) June 24, 2019