吃瓜大本营

This case involves a facial First Amendment challenge to a provision of federal trademark law that directs the United States Patent and Trademark Office to refuse to registrar trademarks containing 鈥渟candalous鈥� or 鈥渋mmoral鈥� matter. 15 U.S.C. 1052(a). Erik Brunetti, an artist who founded a streetwear brand in 1990, sought federal registration for the trademark 鈥淔UCT鈥� in connection with his clothing line. Brunetti鈥檚 application was refused on the ground that FUCT is 鈥渟candalous.鈥� In reaching that conclusion the Board also noted that Brunetti鈥檚 website and blog contained 鈥渁nti-social imagery,鈥� was 鈥渓acking in taste,鈥� and contained themes of 鈥渕isogyny鈥� and 鈥渆xtreme nihilism.鈥�

The ACLU and the ACLU of the District of Columbia filed an amicus brief in support of Mr. Brunetti. The prohibition against registering trademarks that are deemed 鈥渋mmoral . . . or scandalous,鈥� 15 U.S.C. 搂 1052(a), is viewpoint-based. It impermissibly regulates private speech because the speech 鈥渆xpresses ideas that offend.鈥� The principle that the government may not regulate private expression because it deems it immoral or offensive is a bedrock foundation of the freedom of expression. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989). In Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), the Court held that the First Amendment bars government officials from penalizing someone for wearing a jacket because officials considered its 鈥淔uck the Draft鈥� message offensive. So, too, the First Amendment prohibits officials from denying registration to Mr. Brunetti鈥檚 鈥淔UCT鈥� trademark because they deem it 鈥渋mmoral鈥� or 鈥渟candalous.鈥�