Patent Office: ‘Redskins’ Bad, ‘Crazy Bitch’ Good
The logic of a hypocritical, activist government, via Byron York:
Law professor Jonathan Turley questions the U.S. Patent Office’s decision to rescind trademark protection for the Washington Redskins. While the move pleased many activists and politicians, Turley asks in a Washington Post article Sunday, is such social activism on the part of a federal agency really a good idea? …
It is, in fact, easy to find a multitude of potentially problematic trademarks. Indeed, a stroll through the Patent Office’s Trademark Electronic Search System is a lesson in the remarkable diversity of trademark-protected names — names that some Americans might well find offensive.
For example, there are registered trademarks that could easily offend some women. Start with “Crazy Bitch” (a barbecue sauce registered in August 2013). Or “That Bitch is Nuts” (a roasted nuts snack registered in October 2013). Or “Bitches of South Beach” (a reality show title registered in November 2012). That’s just three; there are plenty of others.
Or take “Wine Slut” (a clothing name registered in January 2009). Or “S.L.U.T.S” (a thermal cup brand registered in August 2008). Or “The Slutcracker” (a dance performance registered in July 2009).
Or “Whore Couture” (a clothing label registered in December 2007). Or “Whoremoans” (clothing registered in September 2008). Or “Food Whore” (clothing registered in June 2014). There are lots of others.
Should any of these be censored by the government? No. But it shows even the patent office has been hijacked by progressives with a political agenda.