one, but the government was nevertheless hopeful that its prurient concerns would survive another day.
Filling in the gaps in its follow-up opinion today, the Supreme Court agrees with Brunetti that no principled reason exists for distinguishing the disparagement ban from the scandalous ban. The government's claim that it's a content neutral action to establish criteria on profanity, excretory and sexual matter can't survive the sniff test, not when such regulation amounts to a perspective on what's offensive and not when trademark examiners have in the past applied their standards inconsistently.
Continuing, she adds, "The 'immoral or scandalous' bar stretches far beyond the Government’s proposed construction. The statute as written does not draw the line at lewd, sexually explicit, or profane marks. Nor does it refer only to marks whose 'mode of expression,' independent of viewpoint, is particularly offensive. It covers the universe of immoral or scandalous—or offensive or disreputable—material. Whether or not lewd or profane.
Interesting
Douchebro™ brand douchebags: our slogan would be 'Come AT me, bro!'
We have summarized this news so that you can read it quickly. If you are interested in the news, you can read the full text here. Read more:
Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
In the census-citizenship case, the Supreme Court may once again affirm 'white rule'Will the Supreme Court approve adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census? It wouldn't be the first time the nation's highest court has acted to preserve white power, critics say. Jesus definitely not the first time
Source: CNN - 🏆 4. / 95 Read more »
Supreme Court agrees to hear Obamacare cases with billions of dollars at stakeThe Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge from health insurers who argue the federal government owes them hefty Obamacare payments There they go again! Those private health insurers that everyone knows and loves. Enough is enough. We need MedicareForAll How is it possible that while something is STILL LAW, the president can just blatantly not follow it, yet there are virtually zero repercussions I speed 5mph and get a ticket I cant afford yet this piece of orange shit breaks the law repeatedly and it's fine. If anything the Insurance companies owe the people! A person spends more than $12k per annual weather they go to the dr or not... But they make you wait a year when they make a mistake on your file so to take your cash to line their own pockets! I say they need to be eliminated!
Source: politico - 🏆 381. / 59 Read more »
Supreme Court bolsters rights for developers and property owners in California and elsewhereThe Supreme Court’s conservative majority gave a major boost to property rights, ruling that developers and landowners may go directly to federal court and seek compensation for a “taking” of their property. I can't wait to read the comments on this one.... Surprised you didn’t put the quotes around “their” VP Really, how? Try asking them, use my name if you want. I'm going to 'Somehow' prove in court that a NYS cop stole all of my $$s, papers and property...without 1st a method of my having rights to $$s, papers or properties and 'The State', not having them?(King Ramses died)
Source: latimes - 🏆 11. / 82 Read more »
U.S. Supreme Court turns away challenge to Trump steel tariffsThe U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a challenge to President Donald Trump&39;s tariffs on imported steel brought by an industry group that argued that a key part of the law under which he imposed the duties violates the U.S. Constitution. The justices declined to hear the American Institute Democrats can no longer get their way by using the Courts.
Source: YahooNews - 🏆 380. / 59 Read more »
Bolsonaro’s Conservative Agenda Is Tested in Brazilian Supreme CourtWhen Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro took office in January, he promised to defend what he calls traditional-family values, loosen gun laws and push the nation to the right after decades of mostly leftist rule. But six months into Mr. Bolsonaro’s administration, the Supreme Court is proving to be a powerful obstacle to his conservative agenda. Going to the right is the only solution to the countries significant problems, most rational people from Brazil would agree. Socialism is not yet viable in such a country... too much violence, illegal activity and corruption at all levels of society. You need pure capitalism... build a country up before you slowly improve the social safety nets and benefits to a sustainable and responsible level. Six month of nothing!
Source: WSJ - 🏆 98. / 63 Read more »
Supreme Court sides with designer over allegedly offensive trademarkNEW: Supreme Court sides with designer who sought to trademark allegedly offensive term but was blocked by a federal law prohibiting registration of 'immoral or scandalous' ideas. MORE: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court sided with a designer over an allegedly offensive trademark. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented in part. Another beer please And that’s free speech, it’s a wrap.
Source: ABC - 🏆 471. / 51 Read more »