We find this fascinating. The USPTO won't issue a trademark because it's vulgar. The applicant says, "It's not vulgar to me, therefore, it isn't." The USPTO applies norms; the applicant applies its will. Who will win? Is there a relationship to a bigger question dogging our society right now? Link. Excerpts:
Twice, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected the [Dykes on Bikes'] 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."
The applicants, in this case, prefer to call themselves dykes.
"We self-identify as dykes on bikes," said Germany, a 48-year-old San Francisco environmental consultant. "To us, (the government's objection) is completely absurd."
Bonus Coverage
The women call themselves "dykes" for the same reason many gays have laid claim to "queer" -- to defang a word that has long been a slur.
Most excellent. So if we use other words commonly deemed derogatory (e.g., fag), we're actually helping the homo-lesbian community. Remember that.
