News & Analysis as of

First Amendment › Free Speech › NFL

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... more +
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 -
Baker Donelson

Employee Rights and Free Speech: Does the NFL's National Anthem Policy Violate the First Amendment?

Baker Donelson on

On May 23, 2018, the National Football League (NFL) implemented a policy that requires all players and team personnel who are present on the sideline for the national anthem to "stand and show respect for the flag." ...more

Troutman Pepper

NFL No-Kneeling Compromise: Implications For The Workplace

Troutman Pepper on

Q: Can private employers limit workplace speech and activities? A: Yes, but only if the limits do not violate other laws. ...more

Mintz - Sports Entertainment Viewpoints

Where is the Line? Options for Professional Leagues and Teams Facing On-Field Player Social Activism

Mintz - Sports Entertainment Viewpoints on

In July 2016, four players on the Minnesota Lynx WNBA team wore black shirts in support of the Black Lives Matter social justice movement. The WNBA fined the players, but later rescinded the fines. In August 2016, San...more

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints

After the Supreme Court Touchdown, Washington Redskins Are Finally Winning at the Fourth Circuit and the PTO

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints on

Two incredible things happened in 1992 for the NFL football team Washington Redskins. It won the Super Bowl and applied to register a trademark Washington Redskins. It has not been so lucky ever since. It has not won another...more

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Trump v. the NFL: Can the Players Sue the President? The Answer Isn’t So Simple

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP on

A few Sundays ago, Terry Bradshaw, the Hall of Fame quarterback, used his platform as the longtime co-host of the television program Fox NFL Sunday to address the growing controversy over some NFL players choosing to kneel...more

Troutman Pepper

Regulating Speech at Work

Troutman Pepper on

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

Payne & Fears

Politics in the Workplace: Do NFL Players Have Freedom of Speech to Protest at Games?

Payne & Fears on

It’s nearly impossible to turn on the TV and not hear something about the NFL player protests and whether such actions are protected speech under the First Amendment. While these protests started last season, they have grown...more

Foster Garvey PC

The Washington Redskins Win Their Trademark Battle in Overtime

Foster Garvey PC on

Simon Tam of the Asian rock band, The Slants, probably was not envisioning an 8-year-long legal battle when he chose the group’s name. Slant is known as a racial slur for Asians. Tam hoped to strip the term of its derogatory...more

CMCP - California Minority Counsel Program

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

CMCP - California Minority Counsel Program on

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

McAfee & Taft

Free speech legal battle changes law on disparaging trademarks

McAfee & Taft on

Last month, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision that struck down a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act....more

Perkins Coie

Supreme Court Holds Disparagement Clause Unconstitutional

Perkins Coie on

In a much anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017) that a provision of the Lanham Act banning the registration of marks considered disparaging to “persons, institutions,...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

If You Have Nothing Nice to Say, Say ®

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP on

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

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

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

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

Foley Hoag LLP - Making Your Mark

Of Slants, Skins, And Signs: Section 2(a) Prohibition of Disparaging Trademark Registrations Struck Down!

Foley Hoag LLP - Making Your Mark on

Well, that happened! According to the Supreme Court’s opinion in Matal v. Tam, Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which purports to prohibit the registration of marks that “disparage . . . persons,” is unconstitutional. ...more

Lewitt Hackman

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

Lewitt Hackman on

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

Jones Day

Siding with The Slants: Ban on Disparaging Marks Held Unconstitutional

Jones Day on

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

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

Supreme Court Holds that First Amendment Protects Disparaging Trademarks

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

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

Fenwick & West LLP

Supreme Court Rocks the Trademark Office in “Slants” Case

Fenwick & West LLP on

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

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

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

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

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

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

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

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints

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

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints on

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

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Even Disparaging Trademarks are Registerable

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on

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

Womble Bond Dickinson

Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Slants Rock Band

Womble Bond Dickinson on

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

Jackson Walker

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

Jackson Walker on

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

Sherman & Howard L.L.C.

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

Sherman & Howard L.L.C. on

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

33 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

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

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide