Page:The Fuck Brief.pdf/12

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

"casual relationship," or what men might refer to as a "booty call." Again, Sex and the City provides an excellent illustration:

Carrie: A fuck buddy is a guy you probably dated once or twice and it didn't really go anywhere, but the sex is so great you sort of... keep him on call.[1]

This brief could go on for thousands of pages, if the undersigned were prepared to burden the examiner with months of reading on the subject. Suffice to say that the Examiner should take notice that "fuck" is accepted, and even beloved. Perhaps if you sent out a survey to your local community asking if they love the word "fuck," you might get one opinion, but Americans vote with their wallets. We buy subscriptions to Satellite Radio by the millions and then request "Crazy Bitch" again and again. We spend millions of dollars at the movies, and aside from a very small minority, we don't mind if the word "fuck" is tossed about with great aplomb, and "fuck" in a movie certainly never cost anyone an Oscar. Sex and The City is more than a TV show, it is a phenomenon among young professional neo-feminist women. Yet nobody is scandalized by Women are for friendships, men are for fucking.[2]

THE RELEVANT MARKETPLACE

Even if the Mark were immoral or scandalous, this determination should only be made "in the context of the marketplace as applied to goods or services described in the application."[3] Therefore, even if the Examiner believes that "fuck" or "fucking" is still of such talismanic power that it would shock a substantial portion of the American public (a superstition that should


  1. http://www.sexandthecityquotes.com/episodes/the-fuck-buddy-quotes.html
  2. Sex and the City, Episode 30, "Ex and the City." See Exhibit H.
  3. Quotation is from the Examiner's initial rejection, but it cites the following cases: In re Mavety Media Group, Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 1371, 31 USPQ2d 1923, 1925 (Fed Cir. 1994); In re Wilcher Corp., 40 USPQ2d 1929, 1930 (TTAB 1996). See also, In re Hershey, 6 USPQ2d 1470 ("to determine whether a designation is properly refused as scandalous, the mark must be considered in the context of the marketplace as applied to the goods or services described in the application")

12