After a long legal struggle, Seattle band Thunderpussy is granted a U.S. trademark; The Seattle Times, April 5, 2020

Brendan Kiley, The Seattle Times; After a long legal struggle, Seattle band Thunderpussy is granted a U.S. trademark

"“There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion. “It therefore violates the First Amendment.” She also noted a lack of consistency in how the USPTO interpreted the Lanham Act, approving some trademarks and rejecting others that used the same potentially offensive language.

Kerr, Thunderpussy’s attorney, had argued the same point in his appeal to the USPTO.

“I mentioned over 40 trademark applications that had been accepted that included the word ‘pussy,’ ” he said. “Human discretion enters into the process, which is one person forming an opinion based on an internet search — but the implications for the band are enormous.”

The wheels of bureaucracy turned and, on April 4, Kerr finally received a letter from the USPTO granting Thunderpussy registered trademark number 6,021,338."

Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument; C-SPAN, April 15, 2019

April 15, 2019, C-SPAN; 

"Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Iancu v. Brunetti, a case concerning trademark law and the ban of “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks. Erik Brunetti founded a streetwear brand called “FUCT” back in 1990. Since then, he’s attempted to trademark it but with no success. Under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) can refuse an application if it considers it to be “immoral” or “scandalous” and that’s exactly what happened here. The USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board also reviewed the application and they too agreed that the mark was “scandalous” and very similar to the word “fucked.” The board also cited that “FUCT” was used on products with sexual imagery and public interpretation of it was “an unmistakable aura of negative sexual connotations.” Mr. Brunetti’s legal team argued that this is in direct violation of his first amendment rights to free speech and private expression. Furthermore, they said speech should be protected under the First Amendment even if one is in disagreement with it. This case eventually came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They ruled in favor of Mr. Brunetti. The federal government then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The justices will now decide whether the Lanham Act banning “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks is unconstitutional."