In this interesting trademark case, a federal lawsuit filed by McDermott challegnes the issuing of a trademark to San Francisco's famed
Dykes On Bikes has been thrown out. Apparantly the reason it was thrown out was because McDermott is a man and he has no legal right to be offended at the word dyke.
According to the article (disturbingly, the url says patent and not trademark), Michael McDermott went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which hears cases about copyright and trademarks, alleging that granting the group a trademark for the exclusive use of the phrase Dykes On Bikes was "disparaging to men and is scandalous and immoral."
According to the court’s past case law, to have standing in opposition proceedings, a party must have (i) a real interest in the proceedings and (ii) reasonable basis for his belief that he would be damaged by registration. A previous finding that McDermott had a real interest went unopposed by the trade mark applicants, and so the case turned on whether he had a reasonable basis for his belief that he would be damaged by the registration
His lawsuit claimed that men are subject to attacks and civil rights violations as a result of Dykes On Bikes' appearance at San Francisco's Gay Pride and Dyke marches, and said the very word dyke is synonymous with a "deep obsessive hatred of men and the male gender."
In a 3-0 ruling the court said that as a man McDermott had no legal right to be offended. The ruling said in order for the case to have proceeded McDermott would have to have shown he had "a reasonable basis for a belief that he would be damaged." As a man, he could not be damaged by the word dyke.
