[Expletive Deleted].

So said the TTAB in a recent non-precedential opinion. In In re Giorgio S.R.L., Ser. No. 79/141,996 the Board affirmed the examining attorney's refusal to register the mark: on the ground that it is scandalous or immoral and thus precluded from registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. The case generated three opinions. The dissent would have held that the asterisks prevented the term from being scandalous. The concurring judge would have agreed with the dissent but for precedent, and thus sided with the majority, which said the asterisks do not reduce or mask the vulgarity of the term.

We will let you assess the term for yourself.

Section 2(a) has been in the news a great deal recently because of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia's decision affirming cancellation of marks disparaging to Native Americans in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD (E.D. Va. July 8, 2015) (currently on appeal) and