UCT alumni from the classes of 2012 to 2016 might remember a certain prospective student council party who registered themselves as F*** UCT.

Or rather, FUCT. This story isn’t about them, though.

It’s about entrepreneur Erik Brunetti – the gentleman in the above image – who founded a clothing brand called FRIENDS U CAN’T TRUST in 1990.

Once again – FUCT.

In 2011, Brunetti sought to register the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, reports CNN.

The office refused Brunetti’s request because it said FUCT was the “phonetic equivalent” of the past tense of a vulgar word, and determined that federal law prohibits the registration of trademarks that consist of “scandalous” subject matter.

Brunetti had stated that the brand was “pronounced as four letters, one after the other: F-U-C-T”, and that was enough for the office to deny his trademark.

At least it was, until the Supreme Court stepped in.

The Supreme Court struck down Monday a provision of federal law that prohibits the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks as a violation of the First Amendment.

The justices’ ruling clears the way for [Brunetti] to apply for a federal trademark for his clothing line called FUCT.

The ruling, which was unanimous in part and 6-3 in part, could open the doors to more requests to register words or phrases that have been considered vulgar, a concern that the court’s minority feared.

They are very afraid. Let’s hear from Justices Roberts, Breyer and Sotomayor (who will wash your mouth out with soap, young man, if they hear that filthy language again).

Roberts, Breyer and Sotomayor would have saved part of the statute that prohibits “scandalous” trademarks. Breyer said he would do so because “these attention-grabbing words” may lead “to the creation of public spaces that many will find repellant, perhaps on occasion creating the risk of verbal altercations or even physical confrontations.”

A bit of light swearing never hurt anyone.

“Much of the debate between the Justices in this case is over just how far they can go to rewrite a poorly worded statute in order to save it from constitutional challenge,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

“That fight shows up in three of the Court’s four decisions from Monday — and is, in many ways, a sign of the times, as the Court confronts an increasingly polarized Congress that, for various reasons, may be more likely to write vague statutes than clear ones,” Vladeck said.

Maybe they should focus on some of the real problems in the States at the moment, like the moral vacuum that is everyone connected with the White House right now.

Start from the top, and you may see a significant decrease in vulgarity.

[source:cnn]