Welcome to Womble Perspectives, where we explore a wide range of topics, from the latest legal updates to industry trends to the business of law. Our team of lawyers, professionals and occasional outside guests will take you through the most pressing issues facing businesses today and provide practical and actionable advice to help you navigate the ever changing legal landscape.
With a focus on innovation, collaboration and client service. We are committed to delivering exceptional value to our clients and to the communities we serve. And now our latest episode.
Welcome back to Womble Perspectives, where law meets culture, and controversy meets clarity.
Today, we’re revisiting a story that’s as provocative as it is legally fascinating: the ongoing trademark battle over the F-word.
Last year, we told you about artist and fashion designer Erik Brunetti’s attempt to trademark the F-word for use on cell phone cases, luggage, jewelry, and more. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said no, citing that the word failed to function as a trademark.
But on August 25, the Federal Circuit said, “Not so fast.”
In a split decision, the court vacated the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s ruling, criticizing it for being too vague. The court pointed out that the Board didn’t clearly define the standard Brunetti supposedly failed to meet. In other words, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said Brunetti didn’t qualify, but didn’t explain why.
This lack of clarity is especially glaring when you consider that other commonplace words, like “LOVE”, have been successfully trademarked. So why not the F-word?
The court emphasized the need for a “viable registration standard,” rather than what it called an “I know it when I see it” approach. The court also noted that the inconsistent decisions by examining attorneys only highlight the absence of coherent rules.
Now, let’s be clear: the Federal Circuit didn’t say Brunetti must get the trademark. But they did say the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board needs to do a better job explaining its reasoning. The case is now headed back to the Board for a second look.
And while Brunetti argued that this refusal was retaliation for his 2019 Supreme Court victory in Iancu v. Brunetti, where the Court struck down the USPTO’s ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks, the Federal Circuit rejected that claim.
So what’s next?
If the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can’t come up with a clear, consistent standard for evaluating trademarks of commonplace words, Brunetti may finally get his registration. But if they double down and affirm the refusal again, another appeal seems almost inevitable.
Thanks for joining us on Womble Perspectives. If you enjoyed today’s episode, be sure to subscribe and share.
Thank you for listening to Womble Perspectives. If you want to learn more about the topics discussed in this episode, please visit The Show Notes, where you can find links to related resources mentioned today. The Show Notes also have more information about our attorneys who provided today's insights, including ways to reach out to them.
Don't forget to subscribe via your podcast player of choice so that you never miss an episode. Thank you again for listening.
