dykes on bikes trademark rejected--vulgar! offensive! scandalous!!!

In case smacking of discrimination,
the San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent, request for a "Dykes on Bikes" Trademark was rejected this summer as offensive.
trademark rejection predicated on the scandalous mark rejection seems to be cover for a personal moral choice of the examiner, and not in touch with reality.
Read below

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/07/14/DYKES.TMP

all information on the filing, and process for this trademark is available on the USPTO website
at http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=doc&state=b2derd.3.9

the USPTO's rejection read

"Dictionary definitions alone may be sufficient to establish that a proposed mark comprises scandalous matter, where multiple dictionaries, including at least one standard dictionary, uniformly indicate that a word is vulgar, and the applicant’s use of the word is limited to the vulgar meaning of the word. TMEP §1203.01. As demonstrated by the evidence previously and presently submitted by the examining attorney, the term DYKE is considered vulgar, offensive and/or disparaging. The fact that a certain segment of the disparaged group has adopted the term and now seeks to obviate the vulgar context of the term does not overcome the Section 2(a) refusal.

Accordingly, applicant’s request for reconsideration is denied. "

the SFWMC website:
http://www.sfwmc.org/

 

it's not over yet as the latest news posted on their website states
   
"Trademark         update: Our attorney's request for remand was granted, which means our         case goes back to the Examiner along with our additional evidence. We         are cautiously hopeful   the Examiner will grant our trademark given         the new evidence, part of which is a compilation video from various SF         Pride Parades, showing that ‘Dykes on Bikes' is a source of pride! If         the Examiner rejects our request, we will resume our appeal proceedings."        

Comments

[Carolyn Klos]

I am concerned by this decision by the USPTO. They base their rationale for rejecting the trademark application on the "vulgar" nature of the word. But wouldnt it make more sense to allow the use of the word in the context of identifying a charitable group and in turn cause the word to take on a positive connotation? It seems to me that by denying the application based solely on the vulgar and disparaging use of the word just perpetuates the negativity associated with it. It seems like in this day and age if the USPTO wants to interject a moral utility element into trademark protection it would be better to use the system to eliminate the stigma attached to certain words and let them take on a more positive meaning.

[Alex Duke]

I agree. It seems curious to me how patents are judged with no regard to morality or vulgarity, and the utility requirement is set so low precisely because courts should not be focusing on making value judgements for people. I wonder if the rap group N.W.A. has a trademark for the expanded version of their name?
Although it seems troubling to me that the basis for opposing the rejection of the patent is not the finding that 'dyke' is or is not vulgar, but lies in the fact that the group requesting protection is in fact a gay rights group, not intending harm. I think the statute should be changed and the determination should be content neutral, i.e., whether it was the S.F. Motorcycle Club requesting it or some radical hate group, let the marketplace decide, not some patent examiner.

[shana_nasty]

What if they dressed up as:
"an embankment of earth and rock built to prevent floods"
a dyke?
haha.
this is ridiculous.

[AlexBau]

It is very sad that such a staple of every self-respecting gay pride parade in the country has not reached the darlings of USPTO in Alexandria, VA. I suggest that all the dykes bike it down there to show some pride. If anything... I would be concerned that Dykes on Bikes would be rejected as a generic mark, since it has been around for so long and its usage has become so common in the gay world.

[Jessicathompson]

There could be situations when the USPTO is concerned that the term would be offensive to others in the gay community. There are terms out there that could be considered either acceptable or offensive depending on the circumstances (Think the N-word) How far do you think the PTO is willing to go? The PTO shouldnt be forcing its morals on the public, but should it be concerned with protecting the public from potentially offensive trademarks? I dont think so.

[Todd_Marcus]

dykes on bikes get their trademark!

read here:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/12/09/MNGQOG5D7P1.DTL