Iancu v. Brunetti

Erik Brunetti (plaintiff) sought to register the trademark FUCT with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). The PTO found that the mark was highly offensive and vulgar with negative sexual connotations. The PTO thus refused to register the mark based on the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering marks that consist of or comprise immoral or scandalous matter. In determining whether marks fell within the immoral-or-scandalous bar, the PTO asked questions including whether the public would view the mark as shocking to truth, decency, or propriety; whether the mark called out for condemnation; and whether the mark was offensive, disgraceful, vulgar, or disreputable. Based on these criteria, the PTO had previously rejected marks that defied conventional standards of morality in areas such as drug use, religion, and terrorism, while allowing the registration of marks that were more consistent with conventional moral standards. For example, the PTO had rejected the mark YOU CAN’T SPELL HEALTHCARE WITHOUT THC while allowing registration of the mark SAY NO TO DRUGS—REALITY IS THE BEST TRIP IN LIFE. Brunetti brought an action in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit against Andrei Iancu (defendant), the director of the PTO, claiming that the immoral-or-scandalous bar violated the First Amendment. The Federal Circuit agreed and invalidated the bar. The United States Supreme Court granted Iancu’s petition for certiorari.