News & Analysis as of

Free Speech Reversal

Downey Brand LLP

Neighbor vs. Neighbor Dispute Over Home Remodel Leads to Reversal of Anti-SLAPP Motion in Court of Appeal

Downey Brand LLP on

In Durkin v. City & County of San Francisco (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 643, the First District Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred in granting the real party in interest’s special motion to strike under anti-SLAPP...more

Franczek P.C.

Supreme Court Issues Decision Affirming a Public Body’s Right to Censure Board Member

Franczek P.C. on

In Houston Community College System v. Wilson, the United States Supreme Court held that a public body’s verbal censure of a fellow board member did not violate the board member’s First Amendment rights. The censure followed...more

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

Lawyer Discipline for Discriminatory Speech - A Pennsylvania Decision Raises Questions About Maryland Rule 19-308.4(e)

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP on

A federal judge has held that Pennsylvania’s Rule 8.4(g),1 which subjects lawyers to professional discipline for engaging in discriminatory conduct, violates both the free speech clause of the First Amendment and the due...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court - March 8, 2021

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following decision: Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, No. 19-968: Petitioner Chike Uzuegbunam, while attending Georgia Gwinnett College – a public college – sought to...more

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart,...

Sixth Circuit Considers Public Employee’s Off-the-Clock Social Media Post in First Amendment Case

On August 19, 2020, in Marquardt v. Carlton, et al., No. 19-4223, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the City of Cleveland on a former employee’s claim that the city had terminated...more

King & Spalding

Trademark Parody and Freedom of Speech in the U.S.

King & Spalding on

Food and beverage brands are routinely listed among the most famous and valuable brands in the world. With fame, however, comes the increased chance that a brand will be a target for trademark parodists. A March 2020...more

Tucker Arensberg, P.C.

Public Employee’s Social Media Post Justifies Discharge

Tucker Arensberg, P.C. on

Carr v. PennDOT, 2020 WL 2532232 (Pa. 2020) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court sustains the termination of employment of a public employee for a social media post). Background - The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Houston First Circuit Court of Appeals Joins the Growing Trend by Holding that the Pre-Amendment TCPA Does Not Protect Certain...

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In a case following a familiar trade-secret set of facts, on April 28, 2020, the Texas First District Court of Appeals in Houston reversed the trial court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under the Texas Citizens Participation...more

Littler

Board Overturns Purple Communications, Restores Employer Right to Restrict Email Use

Littler on

On December 17, 2019, in a 3-1 decision split along party lines, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) restored to employers the right to restrict employees from using company email systems for nonbusiness purposes.  The...more

Payne & Fears

Key California Employment Law Cases: July 2019

Payne & Fears on

This month's key California employment law cases involve payment of wages, workplace conditions, public employment issues, and civil procedure....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Immoral No More: SCOTUS Strikes Down Ban on Registration of Offensive Trademarks

In a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a 2017 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision holding the ban on registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks under the Lanham Act to be an...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Registration of “Scandalous” or “Immoral” Trademarks

Last week, on June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” bar to trademark registration constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and thus...more

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Client Alert: The Trademarks THE SLANTS, REDSKINS and Now FUCT Are Registerable Trademarks Following the Supreme Court’s Iancu v....

In permitting the registration of the “vulgar” term FUCT, the Supreme Court recently extended its 2016 ruling from Matal v. Tam, which allowed the registration of the trademark THE SLANTS for an Asian-American rock band...more

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP

The Supreme Court Says Yes To "Seven Dirty Words"

The road to permitting the registration of George Carlin's "seven dirty words" began in 2017, with the Supreme Court holding unconstitutional the Trademark Act's prohibition against registration of trademarks which are...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

Supreme Court Holds Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks Unconstitutional

On June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court, in Iancu v. Brunetti, reviewing the trademark application for “FUCT”, held that the Lanham’s Act’s provision, prohibiting the registration of “immoral[] or scandalous”...more

Foley Hoag LLP - Making Your Mark

Son of Tam: Supreme Court Strikes Down Lanham Act Section 2(a) For "Immoral" and "Scandalous" Marks

In our prior blog entries... we followed the course of Matal v. Tam, the case involving the mark “THE SLANTS.” In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on...more

ArentFox Schiff

Supreme Court Rules Ban on ‘Immoral or Scandalous’ Trademarks Unconstitutional

ArentFox Schiff on

On Monday, the Supreme Court held that the ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court found that, as with the recently struck down ban on “disparaging” marks, the ban...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Lanham Act’s Prohibition Of Immoral And Scandalous Marks Is Officially “FUCT”

Fox Rothschild LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court this week officially pulled the plug on the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of trademarks that comprise “immoral” or “scandalous” matter on First Amendment grounds. The prohibition, found...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Scandalous Marks? Nothing the Proverbial Bar of Soap Can’t Fix

Earlier this week the United States Supreme Court struck down a century-old provision in the Lanham Act that banned the registration of marks deemed “immoral” or “scandalous.” By a 6-3 vote, the Court found in Iancu v....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on "Immoral and Scandalous" Trademarks

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, finding that the Lanham Act prohibition against registration of scandalous or immoral trademarks violates the First Amendment of the U.S....more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Immoral & Scandalous Marks Survive

Fox Rothschild LLP on

It’s old news by now, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that the immoral and scandalous trademark ban set forth in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it disfavors...more

K&L Gates LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on "Immoral" or "Scandalous"

K&L Gates LLP on

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Iancu v. Brunetti that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment....more

Alston & Bird

The First Amendment Wins Again: Supreme Court Holds “Immoral” and “Scandalous” Trademarks Are Registrable

Alston & Bird on

Following its decision on The Slants two years ago, the Supreme Court again lands on the side of free speech in Iancu v. Brunetti. Our Intellectual Property – Trademark & Copyright Group discusses the case of the FUCT...more

Dickinson Wright

Why the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision to Allow Federal Registration of FUCT Impacts Everyday Businesses

Dickinson Wright on

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Iancu v Brunetti that prohibiting federal registration of “immoral or scandalous” marks violates the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. ...more

McCarter & English, LLP

“F” Word Doesn’t Faze Supreme Court – Supreme Court Says USPTO Cannot Refuse To Grant Trademarks Merely Because They Contain...

George Carlin famously observed that there are seven words you can’t say on TV. Erik Brunetti didn’t get the message and thus sought to register a trademark for a line of clothing called “FUCT.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark...more

85 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4

"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