Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

separately.  In re Brunetti, 877 F. 3d 1330, 1336 (CA Fed.
2017);  Brief  for  Petitioner  6  (stating  that  the  PTO  “has 
long treated the two terms as composing a single category”).
To  determine  whether  a  mark  fits  in  the  category,  the 
PTO asks whether a “substantial composite of the general
public”  would  find  the  mark  “shocking  to  the  sense  of 
truth,  decency,  or  propriety”;  “giving  offense  to  the  con-
science or moral feelings”; “calling out for condemnation”; 
“disgraceful”;  “offensive”;  “disreputable”;  or  “vulgar.”    877 
F. 3d,  at  1336  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted);  see
Brief  for  Petitioner  6  (agreeing  that  the  PTO  “generally 
defines” the category in that way). 

Both  a  PTO  examining  attorney  and  the  PTO’s  Trade-
mark  Trial  and  Appeal  Board  decided  that  Brunetti’s
mark  flunked  that  test.  The  attorney  determined  that
FUCT was “a total vulgar” and “therefore[ ] unregistrable.”
App.  27–28.  On  review,  the  Board  stated  that  the  mark 
was  “highly  offensive”  and  “vulgar,”  and  that  it  had  “de-
cidedly  negative  sexual  connotations.”    App.  to  Pet.  for 
Cert. 59a,  64a–65a.  As part of its review, the Board also 
considered  evidence  of  how  Brunetti  used  the  mark.    It 
found  that  Brunetti’s  website  and  products  contained 
imagery,  near  the  mark,  of  “extreme  nihilism”  and  “anti-
social”  behavior.  Id.,  at  64a.  In  that  context,  the  Board 
thought,  the  mark  communicated  “misogyny,  depravity,
[and] violence.”  Ibid.  The Board concluded: “Whether one 
considers [the mark] as a sexual term, or finds that [Bru-
netti]  has  used  [the  mark]  in  the  context  of  extreme  mi-
sogyny, nihilism or violence, we have no question but that 
[the term is] extremely offensive.”  Id., at 65a. 

Brunetti then brought a facial challenge to the “immoral 
or scandalous” bar in the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.  That  court  found  the  prohibition  to  violate  the
First Amendment.  As usual when a lower court has inval-
idated  a  federal  statute,  we  granted  certiorari.    586  U. S. 
___ (2019).