In an eminently sensible decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled this week that a dude doesn’t have any legal basis for being offended by the trademarked name Dykes on Bikes.
Someone opposing a trademark has to show “a reasonable basis for a belief that he would be damaged,” the court said in a 3-0 decision. McDermott, being a man, couldn’t be harmed by a group’s decision to call itself “dykes,” the panel wrote.
Not that McDermott, who claims the name is “disparaging to men and is scandalous and immoral,” didn’t do his best to convince them he had been irreparably aggrieved. Or that all men are. Or could be. Or something.
In the arguments he filed with the patent office and in court, he stated his opposition to any trademark for a group associated with the annual Dyke March, which he called “the Annual Illegal San Francisco Dyke Hate Riot.”
He said he and all men are subject to criminal attacks and civil right violations during the march, and that the word dyke is associated with a “deep obsessive hatred of men and the male gender.”
Don’tcha just love someone who can accuse the Dykes on Bikes of obsessive hatred while, without the merest hint of irony, referring to their pride march as a hate riot?
Anyway, this decision is significant in that it means “one person totally unrelated to a trademark or the use of a trademark can’t stand in the way.” We likeys anything that makes protecting their undeserved privilege a lot harder for the civil rights zero-summers, who believe something is inevitably being robbed of them if rights are extended to include others.
[H/T to Bluestockingsrs.]