Skip to content

Selfpos

  • Home
  • European Law
  • Canada Law
  • Internet Law
  • Property Law
  • New York Law
  • More
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • Disclaimer
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms and Conditions
  • Toggle search form
“Scandalousness” remains a lightning rod at the TTAB

“Scandalousness” remains a lightning rod at the TTAB

Posted on November 20, 2024 By rehan.rafique No Comments on “Scandalousness” remains a lightning rod at the TTAB

Originally posted 2008-09-24 11:39:48. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

John Welch reports on an interesting, not quite safe for home viewing case called Boston Red Sox Baseball Club Limited Partnership v. Brad Francis Sherman in which the TTAB sustained an opposition to a trademark brought by the Boston Red Sox, owners of the RED SOX mark, regarding a mark we will not name here that the Bosox argued was, among four other things, scandalous and therefore not registrable.  The The Splendid Rod... uh, Splinterscandalousness ground — a topic we’ve visited here frequently — was among those upheld by the panel:

Scandalousness: Applicant Sherman contended that [the mark] is a parody of the RED SOX stylized mark, comprising an “elegant and symmetrical transposition” of RED SOX, a subtle play on words that “enhances the humor.” According to Sherman, “the elegance of the execution mitigates any perceived vulgarity of the resulting turn of phrase.” In his view, the mark “represents the at once clever yet sophomoric sense of humor that prevails in those venues in which apparel bearing the [applicant’s] Stylized mark would likely be worn, e.g., ballparks, sports bars, and university campuses.”

The Board, however, noted that the marketplace includes all public places where clothing would be worn or purchased. Sherman’s mark would convey “not a sexually suggestive connotation as applicant contends, but rather a sexually explicit message to the viewer.” Use of the term on children’s and infant clothing “makes the term particularly lurid and offensive.” Whether Sherman intended the mark to be humorous, or whether some people would see it as humorous, is immaterial. A substantial portion of the public would see it as vulgar.

Well that sounds pretty reasonable.  Read the item at John’s blog and the narsty content of the trademark application, and see if you disagree.

(We are now just going to sit here and wait for Marc Randazza‘s comment to constitute the continuation of this item.)

Related



Post navigation

Internet Law

Post navigation

Previous Post: Canadian Cosmetic Regulations to Receive a Makeover — G.S. Jameson & Company
Next Post: EU Commission to appeal the Apple State aid judgement: the best is yet to come

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • Was It Trivial or Consequential?
  • (De)coloniality and EU Legal Studies
  • Can I Sue After Quitting a Toxic Workplace in Ontario?
  • Summaries of judgments: Joined Cases T-830/22 and T-156/23 and Case T-1033/23 Poland v Commission 
  • Best of 2012: Fees, won’t you stay

Copyright © 2025 Selfpos.

Powered by PressBook Blog WordPress theme