The Supreme Court agreed on September 29 to consider whether a
provision of the Lanham Act that allows the USPTO to refuse to
register "disparaging" trademarks violates the
constitutional right to free speech. The case is Lee v.
Tam (Docket No. 15-1293).
Tam concerns a rock band called "The Slants"
founded in 2006 in Portland, Oregon by Simon Tam. Like the
band's music, the name is an exercise in social commentary:
Tam's goal was to reappropriate a derogatory term for people of
Asian descent. In 2011, Tam tried to register "The
Slants" as a trademark. The PTO refused, calling the
name "disparaging" within the meaning of 15 U.S.C.
section 1052(a). The PTO has made a number of similar calls
of late; for example, it refused to register the mark "Stop
the Islamization of America" on the grounds that it is
disparaging to Muslims.
A divided en banc panel of the Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals held section 1052(a) facially invalid in December
2015. The Federal Circuit ruled that it necessarily violates
the First Amendment right to free speech to reject a mark based on
disapproval of its content. In that Court's words,
"the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech."
The PTO petitioned for a writ of certiorari in April, which the
Supreme Court granted on September 29. No date has been set
for oral argument.
Tam and his band are not the only litigants currently trying to
invalidate section 1052(a). In a case currently pending
before the Fourth Circuit, the NFL's Washington Redskins team
is challenging the PTO's decision to revoke the team's
trademarks in various iterations of its name on the grounds that
the marks were disparaging to Native Americans when registered
between 1967 and 1990. The team filed an amicus brief urging
the Court to hear its case alongside Tam's without waiting for
the Fourth Circuit to rule; the Court declined, so for now the
'Skins will be forced to watch from the sideline.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
This program will help the litigator learn how to manage particularly contentious situations in litigation effectively, by maintaining a balanced tone and approach and creating personal and psychological distance.
Nancy Pritikin and Lindbergh Porter, experienced litigators, will provide practical advice regarding how litigators can approach highly contentious situations effectively and in accordance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Their experience and techniques will be of assistance to litigators, particularly to those who are just starting out in their practice to manage those situations calmly and with confidence.
26 Apr 2017, Business Breakfast, San Diego, United States
Please join us for Sheppard Mullin's Breakfast With Your Labor Lawyer Seminar Series. This year, you will have to face many new developments in California labor and employment laws that will significantly affect the way you run your day-to-day business operations.
This program will provide an update on recent developments in open source and address practical approaches for developing a corporate open source policy, managing open source issues and diligence in transactions, distributing software under open source licenses and contributions to managed open source projects.
In Wasica Finance GmbH v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., No. 15-2078 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the patentee Wasica Finance discovered, among other things, the importance of using consistent terminology in the patent specification and claims.
While under attack for several years now, the patent infringement defense of laches was dealt a serious, and likely final, blow by the recent Supreme Court case of SCA Hygiene Products AB et al. v. First Quality Baby Products LLC et al.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
On April 6, 2017, the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part and affirmed-in-part the district court's judgment of infringement and summary judgment for non-infringement of The Medicines Company's ("MedCo") patents-in-suit.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).