In Re the Boulevard Entertainment, Inc

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding 1-800-JACK-OFF and JACK OFF scandalous, where all dictionary definitions of “jack-off” were considered vulgar
• “A showing that a mark is vulgar is sufficient to establish that it ‘consists of or comprises immoral ... or scandalous matter’ within the meaning of section 1052(a).”
• “A showing that a mark is vulgar is sufficient to establish that it ‘consists of or comprises immoral . . . or scandalous matter’ within the meaning of section 1052(a).”
• \dictionary evidence alone can be sufficient to satisfy the 12 Serial No. 77099522 PTO's burden\ of showing that \a substantial composite of the general public considers a word scandalous.\
• “the PTO must decide each application on its own merits, and decisions regarding other registrations do not bind either the agency or this court,” citing In re Nett Designs, 236 F.3d 1339, 57 USPQ2d 1564, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
• “The fact that, whether because of administrative error or otherwise, some marks have been registered even though they may be in violation of the governing statutory standard does not mean that the agency must forgo applying that standard in all other cases.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).