The decision, which was partly unanimous and partly 6-3, could open the door to more requests for registration of words or phrases that are considered vulgar, a concern that the minority of the court was afraid.
"We believe that this provision violates the First Amendment," Elena Kagan wrote in the opinion of the majority because "does not approve certain ideas."
Entrepreneur Eric Brunetti said he founded the clothing brand in 1990, the assumptions of society. He said the name of his company means "FRIENDS CAN NOT GIVE."
Bruneti's request that FUCT is a "phonetic equivalent" of the past vulgar word, and stated that the federal law prohibits the registration of trade ski brands that comprise the "outrageous" object.
According to Brunetti, the brand (which acts as a trademark of clothing) is pronounced as four letters, one after the other: FUCT, but you can read it differently, and if so, you will hardly be alone "
Kagan wrote the status of "do not paint the line of wicked, sexually expressed or secular marks" instead of covering the "universe of immoral or scandalous" material
"A law unfavorable to" insults that offend " from a point of view, in violation of the First Amendment, "she writes. Kagan joined Judges Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Samuel Alito, Brett Canawaw and Neil Gorsoch in full. Chief Justice John Roberts and judges Stephen Breyer and Sonya Sotomayor agreed in part and in part. Alito has suggested that Congress intervene and act.
"Our decision does not prevent Congress from adopting a more carefully focused status that excludes the registration of trademarks containing vulgar terms that do not play a real role in expressing ideas," Alito writes in a concerted opinion
"serves only to further diminish our popular culture," but judges are "not lawmakers and can not replace a new statute for the current one."
Roberts, Breyer, and Sotomayor would save part of the statute that forbids "scandalous" trademarks. Breyer said he would do this because "these attracted words can" lead to the creation of public spaces that many will find to be repulsive, perhaps in terms of creating the risk of verbal confusion or even physical confrontation. "
"Just think," he wrote, "how would you react if you saw someone wearing a T-shirt or using a product embellished with a hateful racial epithet."
Sotomayor added that the court's decision "will cause unfortunate results."
"A large part of the debate among judges in this case is just how far they can go to rewrite a badly formulated status to save him from a constitutional challenge," says Steve Vladek, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Texas
"This struggle is manifested in three of the Court's four judgments on Monday – and in many ways is a sign of time, as the Court faces an ever more polarized Congress which, for various reasons, is more likely to write a vague law and rather than clear, "Vladek said.
Judges will issue additional opinions on Wednesday.
This story has been updated.