The memes all say, "No f**ks to give," but a three-judge panel of federal judges handed a big one out to artist Erik Brunetti this week.

Rihanna, stylin'.


Law & Crime notes,

The court ultimately ruled that while the attempted trademark was vulgar, the rules which prevent immoral or scandalous trademarks are unconstitutional restrictions on free speech, but added, perhaps unconvincingly:  “[w]e find the use of such marks in commerce discomforting, and are not eager to see a proliferation of such marks in the marketplace.”

What’s interesting about the decision is that the court reasoned that since other vulgar forms of expression, such as song lyrics, are able to obtain copyright protection, that trademark protection should also be allowed for vulgar expressions. Copyright laws protect owners of intellectual property against others who copy without permission, while trademark laws are consumer protection laws which seek to help consumers identify the source of goods for quality, consistency, taste, etc. Does the ‘F’-word really help consumers determine who produced the products they want to buy? The court glossed that analysis by saying, “although trademarks serve a commercial purpose as source identifiers in the marketplace, the disparagement provision of [the law is] related to the expressive character of marks, not their commercial purpose,” and therefore is subject to free speech analyses.

The court's opinion is here. Its analysis of the term at issue is at pp. 6-9.