Even if the term were "offensive" or "vulgar," which the Applicant denies, these are not the standards for rejection under section 2(a).[1] In order to deny registration, the Examiner must establish that the mark comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter.[2]
Prior to presentation of the Applicant’s arguments in full, the Applicant would like to grant the podium to Justice Harlan, a revered member of the United States Supreme Court, writing for the majority in the landmark Supreme Court case, Cohen v. California.[3]
[W]hile [fuck], the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man’s vulgarity is another man’s lyric.[4]
What can better illustrate our profoundly held national value that ideas are to be nurtured and protected than Justice Harlan’s tribute to tolerance and moral neutrality? The Applicant asks that the Examiner understand what is at stake in this seemingly humble case. This is not a case about the word "fucking" so much as it is a case about tolerance, evolution, and expression.
With that established, the Examiner must step backward from his own feelings about this maligned word, step backward from any baggage that it may carry for him, and step into the light, warmth, and beauty of our Constitution and our rule of law. Once the Examiner is there, the Examiner will agree that it is his duty to reverse his initial determination, and to permit the Mark to be published for opposition.
B. The Applicant, and the Applicant’s socio-political perspective
The Examiner’s initial determination misinterprets the Applicant’s intention.
Though "FUCKING" has other meanings, the nature of applicant’s services
5
