Vulgar, scandalous, immoral? SCOTUS says OK for trademark

SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the law enabled the government to discriminate against trademarks that espouse particular points of view and there fore violates the First Amendment's protection of free speech.
Share

The Supreme Court ruled last month that it is unconstitutional for the US Patent and Trademark Office to ban “immoral or scandalous” names.

The suit arose when Erik Brunetti, founder of fashion brand Fuct, attempted to register the trademark, and was refused. Although Brunetti’s lawyers stated that the name was to be sounded out as an abbreviation “F-U-C-T” (c’mon, folks, really?), the USPTO argued that the name was too vulgar, violating the Lanham Act (the law governing trademark).

SCOTUS unanimously ruled that the law enabled the government to discriminate against trademarks that espouse particular points of view and there fore violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

The trademark prohibition hadn’t stopped many companies before now from choosing intentionally shocking names. (It’s common for local companies not to even bother trying to register a mark for their company name.) Lifestyle brands such as alcohol, makeup, and fashion have especially dipped into the indelicate to get attention for their products.

Stay tuned next week for Catchword’s Raunchy Name Roundup.

RELATED INSIGHTS

What do expert namers think of the proliferation of "Deep" names? Catchword's take in The Washington Post
02.18.2025
Fast Company tapped the Catchword team to evaluate Dell's new brand architecture. Spoiler: great strategy, meh naming
01.09.2025

Maria is Co-Founder & Creative Director of Catchword Branding and has personally created hundreds of brand names, including Asana, Upwork, Vudu, and

11.25.2024