News & Analysis as of September 26, 2024

Supreme Court of the United States › Disparagement

+ Follow

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 -

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

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP on 8/4/2023

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

Supreme Court finds censuring a board member didn’t violate First Amendment

Bricker Graydon LLP on 3/29/2022

The Supreme Court ruled last week that a college board’s censure of a trustee did not violate the First Amendment. David Wilson was an elected member of the Board of Trustees of the Houston Community College (HCC) System...more

Supreme Court to Politicians: Toughen Up, Buttercup!

Sands Anderson PC on 3/28/2022

What do you suppose the Supreme Court might tell a politician who filed a lawsuit complaining that other politicians said mean things about him? You might think the Court would say, “Toughen up, Buttercup!” Well, yesterday,...more

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

Bodman on 9/8/2021

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

After Nearly 30 Years of Controversy, the Washington Redskins Will Retire the Redskins Team Name and Trademark

Weintraub Tobin on 7/20/2020

On Monday, July 13, 2020, the ownership group of the Washington Redskins (the “Team”) announced that it will abandon the Redskins team name after nearly 30 years of controversy. The decision, despite what the Team says, is...more

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

International Lawyers Network on 8/5/2019

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

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

Snell & Wilmer on 4/18/2019

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

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

BakerHostetler on 3/19/2019

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

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

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints on 3/15/2019

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

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 3/5/2019

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

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

McDermott Will & Emery on 2/8/2019

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

Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks

Kilpatrick on 1/10/2019

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

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

Cooley LLP on 1/10/2019

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

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

Snell & Wilmer on 1/9/2019

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

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on 1/7/2019

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

Significant Intellectual Property Trademark Decisions

Harris Beach PLLC on 3/27/2018

2017 was a year filled with significant developments in case law for trademarks. The below rulings highlight some successes and obstacles faced by companies in the protection of their trademarks and their brand as a whole. ...more

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

Jaburg Wilk on 2/22/2018

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

Federal Circuit Bleeps Lanham Act Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Marks

McDermott Will & Emery on 2/6/2018

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

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

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

How Scandalous! Federal Circuit Holds Vulgar Trademarks Are Registrable

Jones Day on 12/22/2017

Trademarks will no longer be refused registration on the basis that they constitute immoral or scandalous matter. On December 15, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit unanimously ruled in In re Brunetti...more

Federal Circuit Holds “Scandalous and Immoral” Ban Unconstitutional

Snell & Wilmer on 12/19/2017

Last Friday, in In re Brunetti, the Federal Circuit held that the ban on “scandalous and immoral” trademarks under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) is unconstitutional. The decision follows the June 19, 2017, Supreme Court decision, Matal...more

Are Offensive Trademark Registrations On The Rise?

Fox Rothschild LLP on 9/4/2017

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

The Washington Redskins Win Their Trademark Battle in Overtime

Foster Garvey PC on 9/1/2017

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

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

Key SCOTUS Decisions in Tech – First Half 2017

Fenwick & West LLP on 8/10/2017

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

112 Results

View per page

Page: of 5

Supreme Court of the United States › Disparagement

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