Your Government at Work for You!

[bierbelly]

REGISTRATION REFUSED FOR TRADEMARK HAVING VULGAR DOUBLE ENTENDRE -- In re Fox 12-1212 -- On December 19 in an opinion by Judge DYK, the Federal Circuit upheld a USPTO decision refusing to register Fox’s trademark. Fox sought to register “**** SUCKER” and the design of a crowing rooster for use with rooster-shaped chocolate lollipops. The USPTO refused registration under Lanham Act section 2(a) on the grounds that a substantial composite of the general public would find the mark scandalous. Fox argued that dictionary definitions of “a **** as a rooster” and “a sucker as a lollipop” were more relevant in light of contemporary attitudes than the USPTO’s more vulgar definitions. The Federal Circuit disagreed. “[T]he association of **** SUCKER with a poultry-themed product [did] not diminish the vulgar meaning—it merely establishe[d] an additional, non-vulgar meaning and a double entendre.” Because one of its two meanings was clearly vulgar, section 2(a) prohibited registration.

Obviously, VB appears to have a problem with the alternative name for a rooster too.

[jaxgator]

Not if you know what you're doing.

cock sucker

[Bingo Fuel]

Too bad.
Cork soakers, according to Janet Jackson and these guys, is already taken.

corks.wmv - YouTube

[island14]

Originally Posted by jaxgator

Not if you know what you're doing.

cock sucker

[Aerovette]

I would have told them to suck my fat rooster !!

[Blademaker]

...

[bierbelly]

Originally Posted by TxAg

Hmmm.... me thinks there's more details here than the OP has presented.

Trademark Denied Due to Scandalous Implication of Rooster Lollipop - Lowering the Bar



So let's see, do the University of South Carolina and Jacksonville State University have trademarks with the word "****" in them? If so, then by the logic in this ruling they should be invalidated because the word in them is vulgar.

Thanks OP. Research is in the works and letters to possibly be written if any trade/service marks are found. Thanks will be given to you for bringing this important information to light.

What is your problem? It's a summary report from the IPO daily briefing. Of course, there's more to it, that's why they cited the case number. And nobody will have standing to appeal further except for Fox (the applicant) herself. The PTO certainly isn't going to give a rats ass about what the University of South Carolina (or anyone else for that matter) thinks.

I thought it was humorous. You seem to think it's a National Disaster.