News & Analysis as of September 19, 2024

Football

+ Follow

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech or the press, preventing citizens from peacefully assembling, or interfering with citizens' ability to petition the government for redress of their grievances. The First Amendment is one of the most sacred aspects of the American legal tradition and has spawned a vast body of jurisprudence and commentary. less -

Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Case of Former Football Coach Who Prayed on the Field after School District Told Him No

Franczek P.C. on 2/8/2022

In 2019, we reported on the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School District involving a football coach at Bremerton High School in Washington state who was placed on administrative leave by his public school district for praying...more

Washington Redskins’ Us Trademark Registrations Reinstated By The Fourth Circuit

Ladas & Parry LLP on 2/13/2018

On January 18, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reinstated the Washington Redskins’ federal trademark registrations originally cancelled by the Trademark Trials and Appeals Board (“TTAB”) in 2014 in...more

Regulating Speech at Work

Troutman Pepper on 10/10/2017

Q: Can a private employer limit its employees’ speech and political activity in the workplace? A: Yes, but not speech that is considered part of a “concerted activity.”...more

Gavel to Gavel: Scandalous and immoral (trademarks)

McAfee & Taft on 9/6/2017

Since 1946, federal law has prohibited registration of scandalous, immoral and disparaging trademarks. This summer, the U.S. Supreme Court found the prohibition on disparaging trademarks to be unconstitutional, creating...more

Public Official or Private Citizen? In Free Speech Cases, Courts Must Decide

Ballard Spahr LLP on 9/6/2017

First Amendment retaliation claims may be getting harder to pursue for state employees, as courts seem increasingly likely to view speech as part of the employees' roles as public officials rather than as private citizens....more

In Matal V. Tam, Scotus Rules Prohibition On Disparaging Trademarks Unconstitutional

CMCP - California Minority Counsel Program on 8/22/2017

The Asian American members of the band the Slants adopted that name to “reclaim” and “take ownership” of the derogatory term. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) refused to register a trademark application...more

The First Amendment Protects The Trademark Registrability Of THE SLANTS And THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS Irrespective Of Political...

Weintraub Tobin on 7/24/2017

In 2014, the Washington Redskins lost a battle before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) where the petitioner, a group of Native American activists, sought cancellation of the “Washington Redskins” trademark, which...more

If You Have Nothing Nice to Say, Say ®

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on 6/27/2017

On June 19, the Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a provision of the Lanham Act prohibiting federal registration of disparaging trademarks. The Court’s ruling in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___, No. 15-1298 (June 19,...more

Brands that Bite - The Supreme Court unanimously rules that the First Amendment forbids the Trademark Office from refusing to...

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on 6/27/2017

By striking down the “disparagement clause,” a 70-year-old provision of federal trademark law, the Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Matal v. Tam has the potential to change the ways in which people conceive, market,...more

Disparaging, Degrading, Derogatory Trademarks: They're Now Enforceable Says Supreme Court

Lewitt Hackman on 6/26/2017

You may remember that several national sports franchises are under fire for trademarks and branding that is seen to be racially disparaging. The Washington Redskins are the first team to come to mind, and it wasn’t too long...more

Siding with The Slants: Ban on Disparaging Marks Held Unconstitutional

Jones Day on 6/24/2017

Asian rock band The Slants is no longer "The Band Who Must Not Be Named," as they titled their most recent album. On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam, striking a provision of the Lanham Act,...more

Supreme Court Holds that First Amendment Protects Disparaging Trademarks

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on 6/23/2017

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court emphasized the importance of broad free speech protection in striking down a statute that allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to refuse registration of disparaging trademarks....more

Supreme Court Rocks the Trademark Office in “Slants” Case

Fenwick & West LLP on 6/22/2017

After a streak of six patent decisions uniformly overruling the Federal Circuit, and for the first time all term, the Supreme Court finally handed the Federal Circuit a win this week. In its landmark ruling in Matal v. Tam...more

In Victory for The Slants, U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Lanham Act’s Disparagement Clause

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on 6/21/2017

In Matal v. Tam, the United States Supreme Court struck a provision of the Lanham Act that has been used to deny federal registration of trademarks deemed disparaging to “persons, . . . institutions, beliefs, or national...more

Supreme Court: Disparaging Speech Protected By First Amendment Lanham Section 2(a) Unconstitutional: A Win for the Slants and the...

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on 6/21/2017

In a unanimous (albeit fractured) decision written by Justice Alito, the United States Supreme struck down a provision of the Lanham (Trademark) Act barring registration of “disparaging” trademarks, handing a victory to...more

Matal v. Tam: U.S. Supreme Court Holds Prohibition on Disparaging Trademarks Unconstitutional under First Amendment

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints on 6/21/2017

In a unanimous decision handed down on June 19th, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a long-standing prohibition against federal registration of “disparaging” trademarks, finding that the this provision of...more

Even Disparaging Trademarks are Registerable

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on 6/21/2017

The Supreme Court recently ruled 8-0 that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) can no longer refuse to register trademarks because it deems them “disparaging” pursuant to a section of the federal trademark statute. ...more

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Slants Rock Band

Womble Bond Dickinson on 6/21/2017

On Monday, June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”) invalidated a 70-year-old provision of U.S. trademark law that previously barred registration of “offensive” trademarks. The high court held that the federal...more

Upon Further Review: Supreme Court Ruling Means “Redskins” Trademark Registrations Are Still In Play

Jackson Walker on 6/21/2017

This week the U.S. Supreme Court held the “disparagement clause” – a federal trademark provision that prohibits the registration of a trademark “which may disparage” . . . persons, . . . , institutions, . . . beliefs, or...more

Intellectual Property Update: High Court Rules That Trademark Registration May Not Be Denied Due To Offensiveness

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on 6/21/2017

In an 8-0 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court this week struck down a provision of the federal Lanham Act prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any...more

Supreme Court Rejects Effort By Redskins to Join Slants

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on 10/5/2016

The Supreme Court rejected the effort by the Washington Redskins to skip the 4th Circuit and Join the hearing of the USPTO appeal of the SLANTS case....more

Brandmarking - Volume 5, Number 2 - October 2016

Dickinson Wright on 10/5/2016

Supreme Court Review of “Disparagement” Trademark Case May – or May Not – Implicate First Amendment, Impact Washington Redskins Case - The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday agreed to hear one of two high-profile cases that...more

Supreme Court Grants Cert. in USPTO Appeal of Slants Decision: Whether The Ban On Offensive Trademarks Violates The First...

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on 10/3/2016

The Supreme Court granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s petition for certiorari in In re Tam, 117 USPQ2d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In that case, the USPTO denied registration of an application to register the...more

The SLANTS Trademark Will Play One More Gig: U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Constitutionality of Ban on Disparaging Trademarks

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today that it will review whether the U.S. Trademark Office can deny registration of offensive trademarks or whether such prohibition violates the First Amendment. The dispute affects the...more

Of Slants, Skins And Signs: The Supreme Court Grants Certiorari

Foley Hoag LLP - Making Your Mark on 9/30/2016

We have been following the course of In re Tam as it has progressed through the PTO and the courts. To recap, at issue is whether Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of marks that may disparage...more

32 Results

View per page

Page: of 2

First Amendment › Free Speech › Football

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"