No Wuckin' Furries (15)
serene56: A snack company in Australia has won the right to call itself Nuckin Futs, despite an official ruling that it was offensive.
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
I don't really give a tit one way or the other after all this is AUSTRALIA the land of slang so I say from one aussie to another No Muckin worries
crikey 
curly28: I don't really give a tit one way or the other after all this is AUSTRALIA the land of slang so I say from one aussie to another No Muckin worries crikey
If its not offensive why change the spelling ? We all know what it means . If its offensive spelt correctly then it should not be used if its aimed at kids .
serene56: A snack company in Australia has won the right to call itself Nuckin Futs, despite an official ruling that it was offensive.
It depends on what they sell.
tonyxf: It depends on what they sell.
Snackfoods but their only for release in pubs and clubs.
I have no problem with it, just wondered what people thought about the F word being regarded as a common part of speech these days.
The trouble with all this "Political Correctness" is that no matter what you say you are in the wrong because someone wants to sue and get some bucks. I have no wucking forry about the name.
We have had on sale for a lot of years "Omah Nuts" and nobody has complained about them.
We have had on sale for a lot of years "Omah Nuts" and nobody has complained about them.
serene56: Snackfoods but their only for release in pubs and clubs.
I have no problem with it, just wondered what people thought about the F word being regarded as a common part of speech these days.
I have no problem with it, just wondered what people thought about the F word being regarded as a common part of speech these days.
Yeah I saw that on I think was current affair I think it has an Aussie feelin to it
wash2u:
We have had on sale for a lot of years "Omah Nuts" and nobody has complained about them.
Is that the same as Nibble Nobbys Nuts?We have had on sale for a lot of years "Omah Nuts" and nobody has complained about them.
serene56: A snack company in Australia has won the right to call itself Nuckin Futs, despite an official ruling that it was offensive.
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
Well, we have a pizza bar here in the 'burbs called
'Wog in a Box'.
...I love the name - not offensive, yet I'm sure some might be offended. But why be offended...it's nothing personal. Just business.serene56: A snack company in Australia has won the right to call itself Nuckin Futs, despite an official ruling that it was offensive.
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
Doesn't worry me and maybe people should just ligten up
tarnsnz: Doesn't worry me and maybe people should just ligten up
serene56: A snack company in Australia has won the right to call itself Nuckin Futs, despite an official ruling that it was offensive.
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
K’nouth serene A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
serene56: A snack company in Australia has won the right to call itself Nuckin Futs, despite an official ruling that it was offensive.
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion
It's just water off a ducks back really!
Shows initiative
More Threads
Democrats destroyed America
makeover
Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
The weird and the random facts around the world
One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
men's perspective towards women
The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
1,419 Views
14 Comments
Created: Jan 2012
Last Viewed: Apr 24
Last Commented: Jan 2012
0 Likes
Related Forums
- Democrats destroyed America
- makeover
- Who will be The Last Person To Post... VERSION FOUR
- I'm a 53 YEAR'S YUNG MAN that lives back in the 80s
- More Proof The GOP is a Criminal Organization
- The weird and the random facts around the world
- One week of the most outrageous GOP leadership!
- men's perspective towards women
- The GOP Representatives owned by Vladimir Putin
- Karen McDougal - Playmate Model will testify in Hush Money Trial
A solicitor representing the Gold Coast company argued that the name was not offensive because the words it suggested were commonplace in everyday Australian language.
The Trade Marks Act states that anything that is regarded as shameful, offensive or shocking to ordinary people had to be rejected.
What are your thoughts, as far as the 'everyday language' suggestion