Comment: Dropping of PepsiCo’s Aunt Jemima is long overdue
19-06-2020
Reclaiming language: are IP offices behind the times?
03-06-2020
Mopic / Shutterstock.com
The issues arising when IP law meets fundamental rights are the subject of evolving opinions and court reasonings in Europe and the US, as WIPR’s Rory O’Neill discovers.
Recent court decisions, such as Iancu v Brunetti in June 2019, which deal with the balance between free speech and IP law, highlight the challenge of striking the right balance between IP and fundamental rights.
The US Supreme Court delivered its highly anticipated verdict in a case that forced the judges to grapple with the implications of trying to balance morality, fundamental rights, and IP in one statute.
Iancu v Brunetti, a dispute over whether streetwear brand owner Erik Brunetti’s ‘Fuct’ mark was impermissible as “scandalous”, revived a fierce debate in the country, and in the court itself. At the heart of the case was what role public institutions, in this case the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), should have in regulating and protecting morality.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at achoudhury@worldipreview.com
fundamental rights, Iancu v Brunetti, free speech, IP law, US Supreme Court, USPTO, first amendment, EU trademark law, scandalous marks, AG, EUIPO, brand
