What a thrill that the TTAB did this right. It seems likely to me that “in the context of Applicant’s goods” the mark isn’t scandalous at all, since anyone who found it so would not be in the market for Applicant’s goods in the first place. And, of course, the fact that cum is Latin for “with”, which makes the mark a triple entendre since it can also men “with an umbrella” — establishes that this is a very clever mark, appropriate to its market context, and far more likely to be amusing than shocking.

bc