forces.
As a form of protected commercial speech, Applicant has a clear legal right to offer or engage in expressive activity of this nature, for the purpose of celebration, communication, and socio-politically revolutionary expression. If this challenge to a puritanical mentality toward sexual conduct, expression, and pleasure is threatening to some – this is to be expected. However, this threat should not be misinterpreted as "immoral" or "scandalous." Nor should this "heckler’s veto" be granted to place Applicant in a disfavored state with respect to the benefits the government confers upon the Applicant and similarly situated businesses and persons. It has long been held that the government may not treat expression differently because of disagreement with the underlying message. It is a less entrenched, but equally controlling, legal principle that laws based on "morality" are no longer permissible absent the government meeting a heavy burden.[1]
- B. America no longer finds "fucking" to be immoral or scandalous.
The Examiner will note that the mark must be examined in the context of the current attitudes of the day. See In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 31 USPQ2d 1923 (Fed. Cir. 1994). It is under the lens of the moral values and mores of contemporary society in which the word must be viewed. See In re Thomas Laboratories, Inc., 189 USPQ 50, 52 (TTAB 1975) ("[I]t is imperative that fullest consideration be given to the moral values and conduct which contemporary society has deemed to be appropriate and acceptable.").
The fact is that when Section 2(a) was written, it was a different day and age. In 1905, matters of public morality were still reeling from neo-Puritanical Victorian influence. The moral values and mores of contemporary society certainly tolerate "fucking" to a great level.
- ↑ See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).
8
