Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comDisparaging band names may turn off potential listeners and dissuade retailers and online marketplaces from carrying albums, but when it comes to who may reject the group, the buck stops with the government.
The ruling on the Washington Redskins’ name, in which the team’s trademark was denied, may lead the casual observer to think otherwise. However, a recent decision on the name of an Asian-American band called The Slants established that while the government may not approve of a trademark, it cannot cancel it for that reason. In July, a federal judge revoked the football team’s federal trademark on the Redskin’s name, citing a legal standard that allows cancelation if a name disparages a substantial subset of a certain group – in the case of the Redskins, that group is Native Americans. The judge noted that the government has editorial control over federal trademark registers.
However, a more recent ruling granted The Slants permission to trademark their potentially disparaging name. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a trademark does not transform the band’s name, initially classified as private speech, into government speech. Due of this, the government has no right to cancel a trademark just because it considers it disparaging. In the decision, the court compared trademarks to birth certificates, street parades or driver’s licenses, none of which the government can revoke on the grounds of disparaging speech.
The ruling is not only a potential win for the Washington Redskins, but for any group that wishes to trademark a name some people may find offensive. If your band name may be disparaging to a certain group of people, but you’d like to trademark it, speak with an experienced entertainment law attorney for more information on trademark law.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!