UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
SERIAL NO: 76/647063
APPLICANT: Thieriot, George Cameron
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS: |
RETURN ADDRESS: Commissioner for Trademarks P.O. Box 1451 Alexandria, VA 22313-1451
|
|
MARK: FUGGIN
|
|
|
CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO: 826-40-002
CORRESPONDENT EMAIL ADDRESS: |
Please provide in all correspondence:
1. Filing date, serial number, mark and applicant's name. 2. Date of this Office Action. 3. Examining Attorney's name and Law Office number. 4. Your telephone number and e-mail address.
|
MAILING/E-MAILING DATE INFORMATION: If the mailing or e-mailing date of this Office action does not appear above, this information can be obtained by visiting the USPTO website at http://tarr.gov.uspto.report/, inserting the application serial number, and viewing the prosecution history for the mailing date of the most recently issued Office communication.
Serial Number 76/647063
Registration is refused because the proposed mark consists of or comprises immoral or scandalous matter. Trademark Act Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. §1052(a); TMEP §1203.01. According to the attached evidence from Sex-Lexis.com web site obtained through the use of the search engine DOGPILE (copy enclosed), the proposed mark “fuggin” is a euphemism for “fucking” and is thus scandalous because it is vulgar and offensive.
To be considered “scandalous,” a mark must be “shocking to the sense of truth, decency or propriety; disgraceful; offensive; disreputable; … giving offense to the conscience or moral feelings; … [or] calling out for condemnation,” in the context of the marketplace as applied to goods or services described in the application. In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 1371, 31 USPQ2d 1923, 1925 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Wilcher Corp., 40 USPQ2d 1929, 1930 (TTAB 1996). Scandalousness is determined from the standpoint of “not necessarily a majority, but a substantial composite of the general public, … and in the context of contemporary attitudes.” Id.
Where no other relevant, non-scandalous, meanings of the allegedly scandalous matter are evident from the record, reliance solely on dictionary definitions is sufficient to demonstrate the scandalous nature of the proposed mark. See, e.g., In re Boulevard Entertainment, Inc.,334 F.3d 1336, 67 USPQ2d 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (1-800-JACK-OFF and JACK OFF held scandalous where all dictionary definitions of “jack-off” were considered vulgar); In re Tinseltown, Inc., 212 USPQ 863 (TTAB 1981) (BULLSHIT held scandalous where all dictionary definitions of that term were considered vulgar).
The fact that profane words may be uttered more freely in contemporary American society than was done in the past does not render such words any less profane. In re Tinseltown, Inc., 212 USPQ 863 (TTAB 1981) (BULLSHIT found scandalous for handbags and other personal accessories).
The examining attorney has searched the Office records and has found no similar registered or pending mark which would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). TMEP §704.02.
/David C. Reihner/, Examining Attorney
Law Office 111, 571-272-9392
571-273-9111 fax.
HOW TO RESPOND TO THIS OFFICE ACTION:
STATUS OF APPLICATION: To check the status of your application, visit the Office’s Trademark Applications and Registrations Retrieval (TARR) system at http://tarr.uspto.gov.
VIEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS ONLINE: Documents in the electronic file for pending applications can be viewed and downloaded online at http://portal.gov.uspto.report/external/portal/tow.
GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION: For general information about trademarks, please visit the Office’s website at http://www.gov.uspto.report/main/trademarks.htm
FOR INQUIRIES OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS OFFICE ACTION, PLEASE CONTACT THE ASSIGNED EXAMINING ATTORNEY SPECIFIED ABOVE.