SCOTUS To Rule On F-Bomb Use

Let's dive straight into the gutter. Can you call your clothing and lifestyle "FUCT" (for trademark purposes)?  For that matter, is it decent to name your restaurant "PHO KEENE"?

Could you get around dirty-word bans on vanity vehicle license plates by using the Roman numerals IV (which sounds like For...) to announce your favorite extramarital activity?

Legal bloggers John Crittenden,   Bobby Ghajar and Rose Kautz writing for Cooley LLP look forward to the US Supreme Court hearing oral arguments as to whether or not the USPTO (United States Patent and Trademark Office) may refuse to grant a trademark for "FUCT", simply because it sounds vulgar.

Original article
https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2019/2019-08-scotus-to-decide-if-ban-on-scandalous-trademarks-is-unconstitutional

Lexology link
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=344eb724-448c-494d-8fc9-a0990ed791b1&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-10&utm_term=

The Court will hear the case in April, and rule in June.

Adding to the flying smut, Jeff Greenbaum  blogging for Frankfurt Kurnit Klein and Selz PC asks broadmindedly, Is It a "Pho Keene" Great Name Or Is It Offensive?

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=aee1e987-d850-428a-8212-d56ec7ba3a16&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-09&utm_term=

Original article  (with illustrations!)
https://advertisinglaw.fkks.com/post/102fctc/is-it-a-pho-keene-great-name-or-is-it-offensive

(Where does one draw the line, when there is a perfectly wonderful tourist destination in Thailand called phuket ?)

For the World Trademark Review, Adam Bobker  pens a comprehensive summary of some of the most interesting goings on, including fake Dyson hair dryers (which can ruin your hair and your day and maybe burn down the house), hologram marks, mary jane in plain packaging, and a "poop shaped" carrying case which Louis Vuitton finds offensive... probably because they call it Pooey Puitton.

Lexology link

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0cf9f2f4-ade4-41f8-9b95-a69e67674aae&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2019-01-10&utm_term=

Original link
https://www.worldtrademarkreview.com/anti-counterfeiting/sweden-allows-hologram-marks-plain-packaging-design-gets-thumbs-and-dyson

Finally, loosely concerned with fakery, rip offs, copyright infringement, and the point of view that "Copyright is Censorship", Chris Castle has a go at the E.F.F.ing people who take lobbying too far.

https://musictechpolicy.com/2019/01/12/europarl_en-explains-article-13-and-googles-fake-lobbying/

All the best, and in the best possible taste.....

Rowena Cherry

PS... if you did not "get" the IV-word, try "IVnick8"   Total red herring. SCOTUS isn't concerned with that.

Will SCOTUS Hear The Authors Guild?

Last week the Authors Guild filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to review an October decision by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Authors Guild v. Google, a case that began in 2005 as a result of Google’s wholesale copying of millions of copyright-protected works.

Please read the press release here.

https://www.authorsguild.org/industry-advocacy/authors-guild-petitions-supreme-court-to-rule-on-google-copying-millions-of-books-without-permission/

The Authors Guild is encouraging authors to help raise the visibility of the petition and of the issue in general by promoting our press release and any positive media coverage. Additionally, the Authors' Guild put together a sequence of questions and answers highlighting why it’s so crucial for the future of authorship and copyright law that the high Court weigh in to redress the Second Circuit’s alleged misinterpretation of fair use. 

You can find it here.

https://www.authorsguild.org/authors-guild-v-google-questions-answers/

Here are two examples of the important Q & As.

Why is the Authors Guild still pursuing this case against Google?Google copied 20 million books to create a massive and uniquely valuable database, all without asking for copyright permission or paying their authors a cent. It mines this vast natural language storehouse for various purposes, not least among them to improve the performance of its search and translation services. The problem is that before Google created Book Search, it digitized and made many digital copies of millions of copyrighted books, which the company never paid for. It never even bought a single book. That, in itself, was an act of theft. If you did it with a single book, you’d be infringing.

How complicated can it be for Google to ask an author permission to use her work?Exactly our point: the rights are eminently clearable. The court refused to acknowledge this point or take it into consideration. For example, our sister organization, the Authors Registry, as well as the Copyright Clearance Center, find authors for royalties from overseas uses with little difficulty or expense. And there are innumerable collective rights organizations around the world who do this all of the time—without much difficulty, and with much less money than Google.

Happy New Year!

Rowena Cherry