IN RE BOULEVARD ENTERTAINMENT

DON'T READ THIS IF YOU'RE EASILY OFFENDED BY COARSE LANGUAGE AND BAD TASTE!!

I assume you're all still with me. I have to pass on a link to this case from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, purely for the "entertainment" value. (Link via the Federal Circuit daily log.) Boulevard Entertainment was challenging a ruling from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that concluded that the company couldn't trademark the phrase 1-800-JACK-OFF because the mark was "scandalous." This, of course, leads to the question of what the phrase actually means. Hold on to your sides. The opinion isn't written in a particularly amusing manner (what a great waste of material -- ahem, well, moving right along!), but it is pretty funny. Here's one unexpected twist, where the court tries to distinguish the phrase in question from the band name "Jack off Jill":

The “JACK OFF JILL” mark, however, is distinguishable from the marks at issue in this case because it relates at least in part to the nursery rhyme involving Jack and Jill, and therefore creates a double entendre that is not present in Boulevard’s marks.

Um, exactly why isn't the band name also "scandalous"? It's a mystery to me even after reading the opinion. Double entendres apparently are more likely to get a pass from the Trademark Board and the courts, but I can't figure out why that would be the case: aren't they arguably more "scandalous"? Just because they're more complex and interesting wouldn't seem to be a reason why they would be less scandalous.

But I can sympathize with the evident desire of the judge just to get the case over with and out of the courtroom. Ah, the wonders of modern commercial litigation. Elevates the soul.