LAIPLALAIPLA
LAIPLALAIPLA
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact
  • About
    • About LAIPLA
    • Ambassador Outreach Program
    • Board of Directors
    • Committees
    • Administration
    • Member Firms and Companies
    • Past Presidents
    • Recent Past Presidents
    • Public Service Award
    • Diversity Fellowship
    • Bylaws
  • Events
  • Membership
  • Sponsorship
  • Contact

USPTO Exam Guide 2-18: Scandalousness Refusals on Hold Pending Final Resolution of In re Brunetti

May 31, 2018| in The TTABlog| by John L. Welch

On May 24, 2018, the USPTO issued “Examination Guidance for Compliance with Section 2(a)’s Scandalousness Provision While Constitutionality Remains in Question during Period to Petition for Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court” (pdf here). In short, applications that receive a “scandalous or immoral” refusal under Section 2(a) will be (or will remain) suspended pending the final outcome of the “FUCT” case, In re Brunetti.

You will recall that the CAFC reversed the Board’s decision in Brunetti, which had found the mark FUCT to be unregistrable under Section 2(a). [TTABlogged here]. The CAFC denied re-hearing on April 12, 2018. The current deadline for the USPTO to file a petition for a writ of certiorari is July 11, 2018.

Any current or future suspension of an application based on the scandalousness provision of Section 2(a) will remain in place until either: (a) the time for filing a petition for certiorari in Brunetti (including any extensions granted) expires, with no petition being filed; or (b) if a petition for certiorari is filed, the later of (1) denial of certiorari or (2) termination of U.S. Supreme Court proceedings in the case. Thereafter, the USPTO will determine whether additional suspension or procedural guidance is needed. If not, examining attorneys will take appropriate action in each case and proceed accordingly.

IP Blog Categories

  • Announcements
  • Events
  • LAIPLA News
  • The TTABlog
  • Uncategorized
  • Wegner's Top 10
  • Wegner's Writings

Archives

Previous

HONEYHOLE SANDWICHES for Restaurant Services Confusable with HONEY HOLE for Alcoholic Beverages, Says TTAB

Next

TTAB Test: Are These Specimens of Use Acceptable for Bottle Caps?


Since 1934, LAIPLA has been educating and connecting members of the local intellectual property legal community

Pages

About 
Events
Membership
Sponsorship
Contact
Privacy Policy

Search
Contact

LAIPLA
1621 W 25th Street
Box 633
San Pedro, CA 90732
Phone: (323) 285-1654
Fax: ( 310) 878-0517
Email: office@laipla.net

© 2025 Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association. All Rights Reserved | Website design by SafeHouse Web.