COCKSUCKER Decision

On December 21, 2012, in Trademarks, by Brian A. Hall

UnIP (UnIntellectual Property): Trademark for COCKSUCKER

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has refused to issue a trademark registration for the mark COCKSUCKER in connection with “Candy, namely lollipops in the shape of the head of a chicken.”  In doing so, it relied upon Section 2 of the Lanham Act’s prohibition against trademarks that “consists of or compromises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter.”  Despite refusing registration, the Court specifically noted that the applicant “will remain free to use her mark in commerce.  She will be unable, however, to call upon the resources of the federal government in order to enforce that mark.”

I hate this decision.  It sucks (pun intended) big time.  I would have felt ok if it were a mere descriptiveness refusal, although I would argue it is at least suggestive.  This law needs to change so that USPTO Examining Attorneys and Judges do not have to decide whether something is immoral.  The Legal Satyricon, Marc Randazza, sums it best with his analysis in Federal Circuit’s COCKSUCKER Decision Sucks.

In Re Marsha Fox, 2012-1212 (Serial No. 76/315,793).


 

One Response to COCKSUCKER Decision

  1. The mark is discussed in the opinion as two words, COCK SUCKER, despite the USPTO identifying it as one. See In re Fox, 2012-1212, 2012 WL 6602862 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2012).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *