USPTO Confirms It Has No Sense Of Humor And A Very Limited Grasp On Today's Slang Lexicon

from the trademarkus-interruptus dept

In this case, applicant seeks registration of NO FUCKS GIVEN for hats, headbands, hooded sweatshirts, pants, shirts, and wraps.

Trademark application denied. So sayeth the US Patent and Trademark Office, citing -- among other things -- a handful of real dictionaries, along with the more useful "Urban Dictionary."


Certainly, a case could be made that the word "fuck" has crossed the threshold of making the fairer sex faint whenever it's uttered or whatever the standard is that turns sharper swear words into just another "damn."

That the USPTO would quote the Urban Dictionary is a small sign that it's broadening its horizons. This is cited somewhat in the registrant's defense, since the UD defines "fucks" as "the standard unit of measurement used to describe the amount an individual cares about something."

But that's the end of the good news for Michael Suo, the man who would be the king of given fucks (clothing items only). And that's the end of the USPTO's brief flirtation with comprehending common slang terms.

From that point on, it's real dictionaries all the way down, leading the USPTO to this inevitable conclusion.

Registration is refused because the applied-for standard character mark, NO FUCKS GIVEN consists of or includes immoral or scandalous matter.

The USPTO notes that the public might be fine with everyone swearing like proverbial sailors, but it won't be a part of this downfall of society, thank you very much.

The fact that profane words may be uttered more freely in contemporary American society than in the past does not render such words any less profane. In re Tinseltown, Inc., 212 USPQ 863, 866 (TTAB 1981) (holding the mark BULLSHIT scandalous for handbags and other personal accessories); see In re Michalko, 110 USPQ2d 1949, 1953 (TTAB 2014) (holding the mark ASSHOLE REPELLENT scandalous for a spray can gag gift).

From that point, it's simply a matter of using a single definition for the word "fuck" pulled from real dictionaries and applying it horribly to the phrase in question. The end result is something akin to a person swearing in something other than their native tongue -- i.e., badly and far too literally.

The attached evidence from Merriam-Webster and Cambridge Dictionaries Online, and others, shows the term, FUCK(S) which is obscene means to engage in coitus with. Therefore, the word FUCK(S) is scandalous because it conveys the commercial connotation of “no coitus given”.

Yeah, but no. And the USPTO probably knows this, since it also cited Know Your Meme.


At no point could this picture of an unhappy owl being sprayed with water be reasonably interpreted as stating:


If Suo indeed has any fucks left to give, he's welcome to appeal the USPTO's decision. But if it's not ready to greenlight BULLSHIT, 1-800-JACK-OFF or ASSHOLE REPELLENT, chances are its fucks will remain in steady supply for the time being. That being said, Suo's lack of registered trademark won't prevent him from selling foul-mouthed headgear, etc., but it won't prevent anyone else from doing so either. And considering the phrase has pretty much pushed "I don't care" into the realm of obsolete vernacular, it's probably a good thing no one's being granted exclusive use. But hat's off to Suo for trying, even if they're of the more boring variety that lack a running total of fucks remaining to give. (h/t Metafilter)

Filed Under: curses, language police, no fucks given, slang, trademark, uspto, zero fucks given

Man Sues City After Arrest For Dropping F-Bombs In A Local Restaurant

from the an-expensive-show-of-force dept

Just because something offends a person (or someone is offended on behalf of someone else -- more on that in a moment) doesn't mean it's illegal. And just because you're eating a meal in full uniform doesn't mean you can use your law enforcement powers to magically turn non-criminal acts into criminal ones. (via Legal Juice)

Tye Trujillo was arrested at IHOP, 3546 E. Main St. in Farmington [New Mexico], by three Farmington police officers after allegedly saying the word "F---" several times shortly before midnight on June 11, 2013, according to an arrest report.

The officers — Dennis Ronk, Albert Boognl and Tamara Smith — were eating dinner at the restaurant in full uniform when the offensive language was used, the report states.

Trujillo, 32, was at the restaurant with several friends. A family with three small children were seated near them, the report states.

According to the report, Ronk approached the men and told them that if they said the word one more time, he would arrest them.

Trujillo allegedly used the word again and Ronk followed through on his threat, the report states.

Trujillo was cited for disorderly conduct and was found guilty of violating city code in Farmington Municipal Court on April 10.

Not noted in the coverage of the story, but included in the complaint [pdf link] is this bit of information that indicates the officer wasn't personally offended, but was acting on behalf of someone he assumed to be offended. From the arrest report:

I noticed a young couple sitting at a table directly behind the male subject's and there was a family of three small children (approximately 3 to 8 years of age) and two adults sitting near my location.

Officer Ronk tried to gather more damning darning incriminating evidence to back up his "you must be offended" arrest, but the person he took offense on behalf of provided no help.

After placing Plaintiff into cuffs, Officer Ronk contacted a family, which included young children, who was also patronizing the restaurant at this time and sitting near Plaintiff's table. One of the female adults at the table told Officer Ronk that she could hear the males using the "f word" but she kept the children busy and did not wish to provide information or get involved in the matter.

And why would she? Presumably she knew that loud swearing in public is something that happens from time to time and, at worst, reflects negatively on the person doing it, but is not actually a criminal act. Officer Ronk painted himself into a corner by issuing a "direct order" (no, really -- that's what it says in the arrest report) to Trujillo to stop saying "Fuck" and backing it up with the threat of an arrest. Trujillo called his bluff, leaving him no choice but to follow through.

Of course, the charges didn't stick. The judge acquitted the plaintiff of the charges because saying the word "fuck" in a public space -- even a public space containing children "approximately 3 to 8 years of age" -- does not rise to the level of "disorderly conduct." The Farmington city code states that disorderly conduct (in terms of speech) must be:

"...obscene, indecent, profane challenging or other words which are inherently likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction in an average person."

Seeing as the mother's immediate reaction was to distract her children rather than punch Trujillo in his foul mouth, it stands to reason that the "average person" would not be "provoked into an immediate violent reaction" by the indiscriminate use of profanity. (On the other hand, directed profanities can provoke "immediate violent reactions" in some police officers, so be aware of that when combining the two.)

Because Officer Ronk couldn't resist the urge to make a public space "safe" for someone else's kids, the City of Farmington will likely be handing over a settlement to Trujillo in the near future. And once it does, constituents will be left holding the tab for a very expensive "fuck" they neither asked for nor enjoyed.

Filed Under: arrests, curses, farmington, free speech, fuck, new mexico, offense

IBM Researcher Feeds Watson Supercomputer The 'Urban Dictionary'; Very Quickly Regrets It

from the hateful-day-when-I-received-life-you-only-live-once-smh-and-etc. dept

As a parent, some of your proudest moments occur when your children begin to talk. After several months of ear-shredding cries and indistinguishable babble, they finally begin to communicate in a language you can understand. A first word is an indescribable joy, whether it's "mama," "dada" or "roku." The future now seems to be an amazing place where you and your child will strive towards excellence together, culminating in a comfortable retirement in which you live off their immense earnings as a person of brilliance.

Shortly thereafter, you begin to rue the day they ever learned the (now) cursed language of their ancestors.

It starts with the incessant barrage of questions in a meandering quest for knowledge, followed by the barrage of questions (mainly, "Why?") that greet every suggestion, criticism or direct order. Shortly thereafter, it's followed by questions directed at your parenting skills, cultural tastes, archaic slang use, rhetorical devices and sense of direction. At the point where you're wishing their language development had followed Charlie Gordon's "learning curve," you're asked to make a surprise appearance at the school administrator's office to explain a sudden outburst of particularly inventive cursing from your former "pride and joy."

So it is also with artificial life.

Watson, IBM's Jeopardy-contestant supercomputer, showed the world that, with the right programming, any puny human could be bested in a mildly snooty game show that handed out answers and asked for questions. However, the quest for true artificial intelligence is still ongoing.

So, in the interest of science, the whole of human knowledge (Internet Edition™) was dropped into Watson's brain and then... the problems began.

Two years ago, Brown attempted to teach Watson the Urban Dictionary. The popular website contains definitions for terms ranging from Internet abbreviations like OMG, short for "Oh, my God," to slang such as "hot mess."

But Watson couldn't distinguish between polite language and profanity -- which the Urban Dictionary is full of. Watson picked up some bad habits from reading Wikipedia as well. In tests it even used the word "bullshit" in an answer to a researcher's query.

Well, it appears that every teacher's distrust of the internet in general is well-earned. It's nothing but quasi-facts dressed up in four-letter words, like a World Book Encyclopedia annotated by 4chan's /b/ board. (I'm not going to link to it. I won't have your misclicks weighing on my soul.) Still, it's disheartening to know that the use of the word "bullshit" (even correctly) is not considered a sign of intelligence, artificial or otherwise. Sure, the word itself may be inappropriate, but under certain circumstances, it is by far the most appropriate answer.

Fortunately for Watson's team, they had the option to remove all this useful knowledge before it offended other researchers who weren't as used to being coldly called on their bullshit.

Ultimately, Brown's 35-person team developed a filter to keep Watson from swearing and scraped the Urban Dictionary from its memory. But the trial proves just how thorny it will be to get artificial intelligence to communicate naturally.

It also shows that artificial intelligence has one huge advantage over regular intelligence: the ability to permanently forget. We lowly humans are stuck with a brain that constantly reminds us (especially if we spend much time at places like the aforementioned /b/ board) that what is seen, cannot be unseen.

Watson, having been de-swearified and brainwashed, is now headed to a better place.

Brown is now training Watson as a diagnostic tool for hospitals.

There it will be able to use its acquired knowledge to battle health issues like cancer, AIDS, diabetes and Dissociative Facebook Identity Disorder. 

Filed Under: artificial intelligence, curses, profanity, urban dictionary, watson
Companies: ibm

Medieval Copy Protection: I Put A Curse On You

from the probably-more-effective dept

Slashdot points us to this wonderful blog post on the Got Medieval blog about how monks and scribes in the middle ages "copy protected" their books with "book curses" inscribed within the book.

I almost wonder if those were more effective than today's DRM attempts.

The blog has a nice image of one such curse, but here are a couple that I find amusing:

Should anyone by craft of any device whatever abstract this book from this place may his soul suffer, in retribution for what he has done, and may his name be erased from the book of the living and not recorded among the Blessed.
--attributed to a 16th-century French missal belonging to a man named Robert

Thys boke is one
And Godes kors ys anoder;
They take the ton,
God gefe them the toder.

[This book is one (thing),
And God's curse is another;
They that take the one,
God gives them the other.]
--found in various Middle English books.

Perhaps the most clever one though, is described as follows:

But far and away my favorite curse is found in a collection of English court transcripts made by William Easingwold around 1491. It takes the form of a clever Latin code. If you read the top two lines together it says "May he who wrote this book procure the joys of life supernal", but the bottom two together produce "May he who steals this book endure the pangs of death infernal" (Drogin's translation). I don't have an image of the manuscript, but this is a close approximation:

All of this reminds me of an even older story of books and attempts to stop copying, which we wrote about last year, concerning Saint Columba -- also known as Colmcille or Colum Cille -- who in the 6th century, decided to copy some religious books in an attempt to "share" the faith with others. He did so with a Latin translation of the Bible and it created quite the mess, with a debate over the legality of copying a book, and whether or not it counted as "property." You see, these arguments aren't particularly new...

Filed Under: books, copy protection, curses, drm, medieval