The US Supreme Court held Monday in Iancu v. Brunetti that the US government’s ban on trademarks on “immoral” or “scandalous” words and symbols violates the First Amendment.

This case arose when a Los Angeles streetwear designer, Erik Brunetti, got turned down by US Patent and Trademark Office when he sought to trademark his brand name FUCT. The agency denied his application under a provision of the Lanham Act that prohibits registration of trademarks that “consist of or comprise immoral or scandalous matter.”

The court followed a precedent set in 2017 when it struck the Lanham Act’s provision forbidding the registration of “disparaging” trademarks. The court held in that case that the disparagement bar was viewpoint based, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Similarly, the court found that the “immoral or scandalous” bar discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and so conflicts with the court’s First Amendment doctrine. Justice Elena Kagan wrote:

But in any event, the “immoral or scandalous” bar is substantially overbroad. There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment.

The decision upholds a ruling by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.