PTO shows political bias, rejects "Dykes on Bikes" as "offensive"

Bad news for businesses based on identity politics: Don't count on being able to trademark your name.

According to SFGate, the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected a local non-profit's application to trademark "Dykes on Bikes" because it is "vulgar, offensive, and scandalous":

Vic Germany thought registering a federal trademark for San Francisco's iconic Dykes on Bikes organization would be no problem. After all, the nonprofit lesbian motorcycle group has become internationally known for riding in the lead position at San Francisco's pride parade every year for nearly three decades. Instead, the group has spent a humiliating two years slogging through the swampland of trademark law, with no end in sight, said Germany, president of the San Francisco Women's Motorcycle Contingent, a.k.a. Dykes on Bikes.

Twice, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the Dykes'
application, on the grounds that "dyke" is vulgar, offensive and "scandalous."
Patent office attorneys even point to Webster's dictionary, which says dyke is
"often used disparagingly."

"The examining attorney found it to be offensive to a significant portion
of the lesbian community," said Jessie Roberts, a trademark administrator with
the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. "And we're also looking out for the
sensitivities of the general public more than that of a specific applicant."

Excuse me, but how does the PTO know what is offensive or not to the general public, let alone the queer community? I mean, did any member of the public even object to the trademark application? Or was this simply an arbitrary decision by a single bureaucrat in D.C.?

The answer appears to be the latter, based on this quote from the article:

Patent office administrator Roberts is sympathetic, yet holds to the responsibilities of her agency.

"Yes, there is sometimes a difference between what is going on in the street currently," she said. "But what we have to do is apply federal law."

Federal law, my butt. The "Offensive and Scandalous" rejection from the PTO has always been used as cover for political or moral judgments, not to protect consumers from product or brand confusion, which is the primary public policy behind trademarks and trademark law.

The Dykes are appealing and I hope they win. The PTO should be ashamed at this decision.

Comments

[Royski]

I think this is the application in question:
http://tarr.uspto.gov/servlet/tarr?regser=serial&entry=78281746
What a BS rejection.

Interested parties can see the application file history by going to http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/tow
and plugging in the application number 78281746

[Maria]

I'm having some trouble with trackbacks. If my TB doesn't appear, I linked to this post here: http://www.dailydoseofqueer.com/?p=351

~ Maria

[The Pathetic Earthling]

I have a law school chum -- a patent attorney in DC -- who knows more about the history of offensive trademark than just about anyone I know. It's sort of his hobby. And yes, you are quite right that they ought to get their TM, but I think it's less about an attempt to squelch anyone than it is about the bureaucratic impulse, to wit:

You rarely get fired for saying no.

And you don't get fired for saying no to something they don't like on the streets of Topeka.