In Re Marsha Fox
702 F.3d 633
| Fed. Cir. | 2012Background
- Fox appeals Board denial of registration for COCK SUCKER for chocolate rooster lollipops; mark has two parts: literal vulgar term and rooster motif; Board found vulgar meaning in context of general public; examiner relied on dictionary meanings and public perception; Fox argued non-vulgar readings (rooster/lollipop) and double entendre; Board relied on vulgar meaning and double entendre; Court reviews Board’s factual determinations for substantial evidence and ultimate registrability de novo; PTO bears burden to prove unregistrability under §1052(a).
- Mark’s meaning is vulgar in common usage; dictionary shows vulgar definition; separation of words does not remove vulgar meaning; mark functions as double entendre.
- The doctrine of double entendre does not grant registrability; substantial composite public perception of vulgar meaning suffices to refuse; no need to prove non-vulgar meaning predominates.
- Board’s decision is consistent with precedent that vulgar double entendres can be precluded from registration; published for opposition not required where scandalous mark exists in §1052(a).
- Fox can still use mark in commerce and seek protection for other design elements; this decision only bars federal registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether COCK SUCKER has a vulgar meaning in context | Fox argues non-vulgar reading; double entendre not clearly vulgar | Board found vulgar meaning in context to substantial public | Yes; mark has vulgar meaning to substantial public |
| Whether double entendre warrants special treatment for registrability | Fox argues double entendre should presumptively registrable | No special treatment; vulgar meaning suffices | No; vulgar meaning alone can preclude registration |
| Whether publication for opposition is required when mark is scandalous | Fox contends publication should occur to test views | PTO may screen scandalous marks without publication | Not required; PTO may refuse without publishing for opposition |
Key Cases Cited
- Mavety Media Grp. Ltd. v. Wild Publishing, Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (ambiguous meanings; not controlling when double entendre present)
- Boulevard Entm’t, Inc. v. City of Toronto, 334 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (double entendre not exempt from §1052(a))
- In re Riverbank Canning Co., 95 F.2d 327 (CCPA 1938) (scandalous matter; vulgarity assessment context-dependent)
- Palm Bay Imports., v. Veuve C. Ponsardin, 396 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (contextual, consumer impression in evaluating registrability)
- In re Hershey, 6 U.S.P.Q.2d 1470 (TTAB 1988) (double entendre considerations discussed)