News & Analysis as of

Supreme Court of the United States › United States Patent and Trademark Office › Disparagement

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Supreme Court to Examine Free Speech Limits in “TRUMP TOO SMALL” Trademark Case

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP on

The intersection of free speech and private business branding is once again in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. On June 5th, the Supreme Court decided to hear Vidal v. Elster, Case 22-704, an appeal from the...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

International Lawyers Network

No Longer “FUCT” - Scandalous Mark Provision Struck Down By Supreme Court

International Lawyers Network on

What constitutes a “scandalous” trademark? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been grappling with this question since the enactment of the 1905 Trademark Act, later codified in the 1946 Lanham...more

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on “Immoral or Scandalous” Trademark Prohibition

Snell & Wilmer on

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti regarding the constitutionality of the portion of Lanham Act, Section 2(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) that prohibits the United...more

BakerHostetler

Protected or Unprotected: The Supreme Court Hears Iancu v. Brunetti

BakerHostetler on

On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether dirty words and vulgar terms may be registrable as trademarks – and if so, what is the test? Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act currently provides that the...more

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints

The FUCT Mark: Is the Prohibition on Scandalous Marks Unconstitutional?

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints on

The constitutionality of yet another portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act will soon be determined. Following in the footsteps of the blockbuster decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (“Tam”), the U.S. Supreme...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

MarkIt to Market - February 2019: Trademark Practice Update: Outrageous! Disgraceful! Appalling!...or is it? SCOTUS to Decide the...

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

U.S. trademark attorneys received a New Year’s surprise last month when the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Iancu v. Brunetti, the case that should determine the availability of federal trademark...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court to Address Whether Trademark Protection Is Permitted for Immoral, Scandalous Marks

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO’s) request that it address whether the prohibition of federal trademark protection for “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is invalid under...more

Kilpatrick

Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks

Kilpatrick on

On January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office in Iancu v. Brunetti. The USPTO seeks to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the prohibition on...more

Cooley LLP

Alert: SCOTUS to Decide If Ban on Scandalous Trademarks Is Unconstitutional

Cooley LLP on

On January 4, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the United States Patent and Trademark Office's ("USPTO") appeal of In re Brunetti, 877 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2017). In taking this case, it appears...more

Snell & Wilmer

How Scandalous! SCOTUS Again Takes up Whether the Lanham Act Violates the First Amendment

Snell & Wilmer on

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a case that will decide whether the federal ban on trademark protection for “scandalous” material is unconstitutional. In re Brunetti follows the U.S. Patent...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The “F Word” Taking Center Stage at the U.S. Supreme Court

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On Friday, while some of us may have been muttering a few bad words as we slogged through our post-holiday inboxes, the Supreme Court was toying with a naughty word of its own: FUCT. That’s right. Late last week the Court...more

Jaburg Wilk

Good Time to Try to Register that “#!$@*!ing” Trademark?

Jaburg Wilk on

On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.) in Matal v. Tam (137 S. Ct. 1744), holding that it violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. ...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Bleeps Lanham Act Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Marks

McDermott Will & Emery on

Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam (i.e., the Slants case) finding the proscription on the registration of disparaging trademarks under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act to be an...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

Fox Rothschild LLP

Are Offensive Trademark Registrations On The Rise?

Fox Rothschild LLP on

In direct response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision striking down the constitutionality of section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which as enacted barred the registration of disparaging trademarks, there is reason to believe...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

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

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

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

Best Best & Krieger LLP on

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Bring on the Bad Word Brands? What the Supreme Court's Decision in Matal v. Tam Means for Trademark Owners

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

The Supreme Court’s June 19, 2017 decision in the Matal v. Tam case has been burning-up the news wires all week. The decision struck down a 70-year-old ban on federally registering disparaging trademarks, finding that the...more

84 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4
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