« Simon Cowell in the IP hot seat! | Main | Juicy Couture, POM Juice and Trade Mark »

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
Christian Louboutin Soldes

Excellent post. It makes me realize the energy of words and pictures. I learn a lot, thank you! Wish you make a further progress in the future.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment