National Review doesn’t know a patent from a trademark

click to enlarge

Sigh.  Even as respected a publication as the National Review doesn’t know the difference between a patent and a trademark.

The recent Supreme Court case Iancu v. Brunetti confirmed the existing case law limiting the ability of the US Patent and Trademark Office to deny a trademark registration on the grounds that it is “immoral or scandalous”.   This might be described as “protecting vulgar trademarks”.  But nothing about this Supreme Court case relates in any way to patents.  The headline quoted above is just completely wrong.  Here is the news story, which by now may have been corrected.

This reminds me of the March 28, 2019 article in USA Today that revealed that that newspaper likewise did not know the difference between a patent and a trademark.  

3 thoughts on “National Review doesn’t know a patent from a trademark

  1. Just goes to show the depressingly low bar for “news reporting” and the ever decreasing quality and understanding by so-called “journalists”. I wonder if anyone needs a college degree, or a high school diploma for that matter, to be a news reporter. No wonder why readership of news journals and newspapers are so low… such things are not worth the time of those who are educated and can afford the subscriptions.

  2. Since “National Review” is the name of a publication and not the name of a person, it does not “know” anything. Catchy title, but also misleading.

    Kudos to National Review for quickly correcting the article.

  3. Pingback: Who doesn't know the difference between a copyright and a trademark? The New York Times - Ant-like Persistence

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.