News & Analysis as of

Lanham Act Music Industry

AEON Law

Patent Poetry: Artists Fight Unauthorized Use of Their Music by Trump Campaign

AEON Law on

Dozens of musical artists have expressed their objections to the Trump Campaign’s use of their music at events. According to Wikipedia, at least 35 musicians have opposed Trump’s use of their music....more

Erise IP

What’s Trending in Trademarks, May 2024: Taylor Swift Fans Analyze Latest Trademark Filing; San Francisco Sues Over San Francisco...

Erise IP on

Every month, Erise’s trademark attorneys review the latest developments at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in the courts, and across the corporate world to bring you the stories that you should know about: Taylor...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

The Legal Dance Off Over the “MJ” Trademark

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

Before we start the show, the casts of characters may drive you Off the Wall, so here’s a little primer to help you: Triumph International, Inc. (“Triumph”) is a merchandise licensing company for the estate of Michael...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

The Third Circuit Limits Preclusive Effect of the TTAB Rulings

On September 17, 2021, the Third Circuit held in Beasley v. Howard that trademark cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) do not have claim preclusive effect against trademark...more

Bodman

Disparaging, Immoral, and Scandalous Trademarks: Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should

Bodman on

At a Glance - Even though the Supreme Court has paved the way for brands to register trademarks that may be considered disparaging, immoral, or scandalous, brand owners are reversing themselves and voluntarily changing....more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Rap Song, Video Trigger Sharon Stone Lawsuit

Accusing rapper Chanel West Coast of trying to capitalize upon her “extraordinary level of popularity and fame,” Sharon Stone filed suit against the musician over the song “Sharon Stoned.”...more

Brooks Pierce

Music Law 101: What Every Band Needs to Know

Brooks Pierce on

Last week, Brooks Pierce participated in CD Baby’s DIY Musician Conference in Nashville. We hosted legal clinics, served as mentors, gave out free copies of our Musician’s Legal Handbook, and presented a legal workshop on...more

CMCP - California Minority Counsel Program

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

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

Fenwick & West LLP

Key SCOTUS Decisions in Tech – First Half 2017

Fenwick & West LLP on

Despite being short one justice for much of the year, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down multiple significant decisions this past term that can unsettle long-standing legal understandings in multiple technology fields. These...more

Brooks Pierce

“Thinking Out Loud” About Copyright Infringement (Again)

Brooks Pierce on

Ed Sheeran has had plenty of court troubles recently. After reportedly reaching a settlement over his song “Photograph” earlier this year, he was recently sued (a second time) for his song “Thinking Out Loud.”...more

Weintraub Tobin

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

Weintraub Tobin on

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

Dickinson Wright

Three Questions from the Supreme Court’s Decision on “Offensive” Trademarks

Dickinson Wright on

Last week the Supreme Court ruled that the Trademark Office may not refuse federal registration to a trademark merely because the mark is “disparaging.” The decision has attracted a lot of media attention, much of it...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Band Trademark Can Rock On: Lanham Act Disparagement Clause Unconstitutional

McDermott Will & Emery on

In an 8–0 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed an en banc panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and found the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to be facially unconstitutional...more

Best Best & Krieger LLP

Supreme Court Rules Trademarks are Protected by First Amendment's Free Speech Clause

Trademarks do not constitute government speech, the U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled. Instead, trademarks qualify as speech protected by the First Amendment Free Speech Clause. As a result, the government cannot reject a...more

Weintraub Tobin

Offensive Trademarks Are Protected Free Speech Under The First Amendment

Weintraub Tobin on

Simon Tam is the lead singer of the rock group call “The Slants’, which is composed of Asian-Americans. Tam applied for federal trademark registration of the band’s name. While the term “slants” is a derogatory term for...more

Dickinson Wright

U.S. Supreme Court Holds Trademark Registrations Are Free to Disparage

Dickinson Wright on

Justice Alito’s summary opinion announced in Court Monday morning, in what has come to be known as the Slants case (Matel v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017), was short and sweet but the trademark applications we can expect...more

Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

If You Have Nothing Nice to Say, Say ®

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

Adler Pollock & Sheehan P.C.

Supreme Court: First Amendment Protects “Disparaging” Trademarks

Since its enactment as the basic federal law on trademarks in 1946, the Lanham Act has prohibited the registration of “derogatory” trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). On June 19, 2017, the...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...

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

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

McCarter & English, LLP

Your New ®Ight To Disparage – A Look Inside “The Slants” Lanham Act Decision

The Federal trademark statute’s more-than-60-year prohibition on registering trademarks that may be viewed as disparaging goes out the window with the United States Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision. The Court ruled...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Slanting Toward The End Of The Commercial Speech Doctrine

Fox Rothschild LLP on

Amid the hullabaloo over the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week in Matal v. Tam, a much broader and potentially more significant development might be overlooked. It shouldn’t be. The case involved Simon Tam’s band...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

The Supreme Court Holds the Lanham Act’s Disparagement Clause Unconstitutional

Robins Kaplan LLP on

In a closely watched decision, the eight participating members of the Supreme Court unanimously held that the so-called disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment. The high-profile case of Matan v....more

57 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 3

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide