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.
Please join Sheppard Mullin for an engaging dual panel event focusing on the current state of the augmented and virtual reality industries. While often mentioned interchangeably, AR and VR are marked by their own distinctive characteristics and uses.
Each of our panels will consist of a cross-section of experts and will focus on the business trends and challenges, investment opportunities, and the legal landscape of the separate AR and VR worlds. The panelists will share their diverse insights on the current climate and future of AR and VR, and discuss how their businesses bear on each arena and the various issues they face.
The decision by a federal jury in Dallas, Texas, to award $500 million to the plaintiffs in a case involving VR technology – despite the jury's conclusion that the defendants had not misappropriated...
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).