consultants are sandburs

Tuesday, January 03, 2017

With Putin and Russia in the news, could those young protesting ladies get a trademark if preforming in the US of A?

Trump and Putin - and terminology; the subject being Pussy Riot. The web search link is for those with short term memory deficit; the rest of us likely remember enough, since the subject here really is only obliquely relative to the young Russian ladies.

It appears our Supreme Court will look at the government's unwillingness to acknowledge satire; at least in the Patent and Trademark Office. The case is Lee v. Tam, and two SCOTUSblog links, here and here, provide background. Compare here and here. (It is politically correct to not only raise a point, but in apparent fairness to use a point-counterpoint format.) The nutshell: Tam's band, The SLANTS, is an Asian American group satirically using their naming while critically emphasizing hateful things directed at Asian Americans by others; and PTO denies them trademark protection accorded Chevrolet, Coors and Kleenex.

Underlying the case and controversy, political correctness and ham-handedness of bureaus. Counterpoint: The case teaches there is a deep awareness within bureaus that offense may be given and taken, by a neutral term, e.g., "slant" as in slanting an argument, when used in a pejorative manner. (Fair use: Don't pay the contractor full price if the fence is not completely vertical, but instead, slants?)

And since all politics is local, we've our Twin Cities case and controversy before the Supremes too. Pay to be busted, and if homeless and carrying cash when busted, get released without charges and given a near-useless debit card for your cash minus the busting fee; is that due process, or less? They took legal tender, they gave back a piece of plastic, go figure.

["The Supremes." Dare I call the Court that, given how the singers likely hold a trademark? Coincidentally, is "MoTown" trademarked? Finally, The Grateful Dead likely is trademarked, given how the dead cannot litigate, buried horizontally as is custom and hence lacking standing, and gratitude among them likely can vary as to degree.]

Is there a political correctness dimension to the plaintiff's captioning of this decades old Minnesota eviction case:

__________FURTHER UPDATE___________
Would it not be politically correct to acknowledge a clear waiver when one is apparent (as advocated by the first LTE writer), and to act accordingly? Time remains favoring such an exercise of Presidential propriety. If contested, it could be fast-tracked to the present eight-member Court.

No comments: