More On Fcuk

promised to convey y'all farther data close the UK Trade Mark Registry’s ruling inward the FCUK revocation determination as well as lo as well as behold, hither it is!

French Connection holds the registered merchandise grade FCUK inward relation to goods inward diverse classes. Mr Dennis Woodman applied for the grade to survive invalidated for goods inward Class xiv nether s.47 of the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 on the ground that it was an immoral grade that was barred from registration nether s.3(1)(f) of the TMA. He argued that that the FCUK grade was intended to survive false for the expletive fuck. French Connection argued that its grade was non of a form that could survive barred from registration. Although a grade of word-play was possible, the root of the grade was equally an acronym for French Connection United Kingdom, as well as in that location had been a publish of other acronyms that had been used internally (such equally FCUS, standing for French Connection United States) to refer to the diverse branches of the company. Numerous traders had associated their products or events with the FCUK mark, or had sold FCUK goods. There had alone been a few instances of complaints to organisations such equally the Advertising Standards Agency, as well as most of these had focused on the purpose of the FCUK grade inward item contexts, rather than to the grade itself.

As the Kat has already informed his readers, the application for revocation was rejected.

*Since Woodman’s instance was that the populace would misconstrue the FCUK grade equally the give-and-take fuck, the initial inquiry to survive answered was whether fuck would survive barred from registration equally a merchandise grade on morality grounds. If the give-and-take fuck would survive registrable, therefore French Connection would own got no instance to answer.

Was the give-and-take “fuck” registrable equally a merchandise mark?

*The give-and-take fuck would non survive registrable equally a merchandise mark. The fact that it was commonly used inward everyday life did non arrive acceptable. It was to a greater extent than than simply smutty as well as would drive appall amid a important department of the public. [IPKat NOTE: Note the similarity inward the reasoning to the US KATRINA BLOWS, BUCK SUCKS decision, which the IPKat mentioned inward his initial postal service on the FCUK decision]

Would the FCUK grade survive false for the give-and-take fuck?

*In judging whether the give-and-take FCUK would survive construed equally the give-and-take fuck, the hearing officeholder examined the visual, aural as well as conceptual touching on of the grade on consumers. [IPKat NOTE: therefore far equally he knows, it’s unprecedented for criteria for comparison marks inward infringement/opposition cases to survive deployed inward immoral marks cases]
*It was non disputed that ordinarily FCUK would survive pronounced equally its private letters, rather than equally a word, therefore aurally they would survive quite different.
*The conceptual pregnant of the grade depended on whether the grade would survive seen equally fuck, either spelled correctly or mis-spelt. While the give-and-take fuck would drive offence to a important department of the public, the offence was non caused past times FCUK itself. Rather the possibility of offence arose through give-and-take play, mistake, or misconstruing of the letters, the grade though would enable the grade to survive seen equally the word.
*It would non survive right to run into the grade equally objectionable because it was capable of existence seen equally something that was not. There was no evidence that establishes that the merchandise grade FCUK solus was seen equally the expletive with an identifiable department of the public.

At what signal should the offensiveness of the grade survive judged?

*There was nix inward s.47 that allowed for the invalidation of a grade that had decease objectionable on absolute grounds through the purpose that had been made of it post-application. Thus, the fact that French Connection had educated the populace to sentiment the grade equally the objectionable give-and-take was non relevant to the hearing officer’s decision. However, the context inward which FCUK had been used may own got contaminated the term FCUK, causing the term itself to decease offensive. This could survive relevant to the hearing officer’s decision. [IPKat NOTE: This seems right – if y'all tin give the sack develop consumers to run into a descriptive give-and-take equally a merchandise mark, y'all should survive able to develop consumers to sentiment neutral words equally having taken on an offensive meaning.]
*In judging whether this had occurred, the reaction to the grade on the marketplace proved a skillful barometer. Respectable traders had traded inward FCUK goods with hardly whatsoever adverse response from members of the public. Also, in that location had been few complaints from the full general populace close the FCUK mark, as well as those that had been made tended to focus on the purpose of FCUK inward a item context, rather than on the term itself.

notes a publish of examples of new reasoning inward the hearing officer’s deicision, peculiarly with regard to comparison plays on immoral words with the immoral words themselves, the signal at which the immorality of the grade must survive judged as well as the comments on educating consumers close the pregnant of words. Merpel wonders why the revocation activity was express to jewellery as well as watches. If it's offensive for them, for sure it's offensive for all goods?