Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

Anonymous comments regarding the Presidential Candidate Selector and the election
President by Curt_Anderson     March 19, 2024 10:10 am (Rating: 2.5) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (95 comments) [2856 views]


Trump Stumbles While Mocking Biden’s Cognitive Ability: ‘You Know What a Clean Fake Is?’
Politics by Curt_Anderson     June 19, 2024 12:27 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (15 comments) [160 views]


Clarence Thomas is sole dissenter in Supreme Court decision on guns
Law by HatetheSwamp     June 21, 2024 9:14 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [75 views]


Is Jack Smith’s appointment constitutional? Trump’s Florida judge is set to decide.
Law by HatetheSwamp     June 21, 2024 7:45 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [31 views]


Trump 59% chance of winning election,... up 4% since the verdict
Politics by HatetheSwamp     June 19, 2024 5:36 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (11 comments) [155 views]


Fox News Poll: Three-point shift in Biden-Trump matchup since May
Politics by Curt_Anderson     June 19, 2024 3:47 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (10 comments) [91 views]


12 Leaked Questions From CNN’s Upcoming Presidential Debate
Media by HatetheSwamp     June 19, 2024 10:16 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (19 comments) [215 views]


abcNEWS: Bud Light boycott still hammers local distributors 1 year later
Business by HatetheSwamp     June 19, 2024 6:17 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (8 comments) [55 views]


The Ten Commandments must be displayed in Louisiana classrooms under requirement signed into law
Law by HatetheSwamp     June 19, 2024 2:32 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (4 comments) [46 views]


Trump’s Old Spiritual Advisor Resigns After Admitting Molesting 12-Year-Old
Religion by Curt_Anderson     June 19, 2024 7:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [157 views]


Law selectors, pages, etc.
Red Sox v. Sex Rod
By Curt Anderson
June 29, 2021 3:52 pm
Category: Law

(0.0 from 0 votes)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)

In a 2008 complaint filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the Red Sox expressed their displeasure with the entrepreneurial intentions of one Brad Francis Sherman who wanted to sell clothes under the trade mark “Sex Rod”. Sex Rod is an anagram for Red Sox. The images below show that both Red Sox and Sex Rod seem to use a similar stylized font.


Red Sox file their opposition
The Boston Red Sox Baseball Team (the Opposer) filed an opposition to the Sex Rod trademark application: "Opposer has pleaded ownership of 16 registrations for marks consisting of or comprising the term RED SOX or a "RED SOX" image for a variety of goods and services. Opposer alleges that as a result of extensive sales and promotion opposer has built up highly valuable goodwill in the marks. Opposer further alleges that applicant's mark, displayed in the particular stylized font, is intended and will be understood to refer to the "Boston Red Sox Major League Baseball" club.

As its original grounds for opposition, opposer alleged priority and likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act; and three grounds under Section 2(a) of the Act: (1) that the mark consists of immoral and scandalous matter; (2) that the mark disparages opposer and/or brings it into contempt or disrepute; and (3) that the mark falsely suggests a connection with opposer. Opposer subsequently amended the opposition to additionally allege that applicant did not have a bona fide intention to use the mark at the time of filing the application."

Sex Rod appeals
In defense, the applicant, Brad Francis Sherman, argued that the Sex Rod mark “represented the at once clever yet sophomoric sense of humor that prevails in those venues in which apparel bearing the SEX ROD stylized mark would likely be worn, e.g., ball parks, sports bars and university
campuses.”

Sherman described his mark "SEX ROD" as a parody of the RED SOX stylized mark, applicant argues that his mark is "an elegant and symmetrical transposition" of RED SOX; that it is a subtle play on words which "enhances the humor"; and that "the elegance of the execution mitigates any perceived vulgarity of the resulting turn of the phrase."

The USPTO decided for the Red Sox and against Sex Rod
Decision: The opposition is sustained on the grounds that the mark is scandalous and disparaging under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act. The opposition is also sustained based on applicant's lack of bona fide intent to use the mark in commerce. The opposition is dismissed on the ground of likelihood of Opposition No. 91172268 33 confusion under Section 2(d) of the Act and on the ground that the mark falsely suggests a connection with opposer under Section 2(a) of the Act.



Cited and related links:

  1. ttabvue.uspto.gov
  2. ttabvue.uspto.gov

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Red Sox v. Sex Rod":

Be the first to comment on this article.


Comment on: "Red Sox v. Sex Rod"


* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page