Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: January 25, 2018
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that the federal bar on registering immoral or scandalous trademarks is unconstitutional. The decision follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s similar ruling with respect to “offensive” trademarks.
Under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may refuse to register a trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” A mark was considered scandalous or immoral if a “substantial composite of the general public” would find the mark “shocking to the sense of propriety, offensive to the conscience or moral feelings or calling out for condemnation.”
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a federal ban on registering disparaging trademarks, holding that it violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) initially denied Simon Shiao Tam’s application to register the mark “The Slants” in connection with his American-Asian dance band of the same name, concluding the mark was disparaging to people of Asian descent. Tam challenged the denial, arguing that the Lanham Act’s prohibition of disparaging marks was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Federal Circuit struck down the disparagement provision as unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court affirmed. “We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote. “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”
In 2011, Brunetti filed a trademark application for the term FUCT for use on athletic apparel. The Trademark Examining Attorney refused registration of the mark under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, citing that it comprises immoral or scandalous matter. According to the Trademark Examining Attorney, the term “Fuct” is the phonetic equivalent of the word “Fucked,” and, therefore is “vulgar, profane and scandalous slang.”
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the denial, agreeing that “a substantial composite of the general public would find this designation vulgar.” It also concluded that “the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is not the appropriate forum for re-evaluating the impacts of any evolving First Amendment jurisprudence within Article III courts upon determinations under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.” On appeal, the Federal Circuit asked the parties to submit briefs explaining how the constitutionality of the scandalousness provision should be resolved in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Tam, on the related issue of disparaging trademarks.
While the USPTO argued that the ban on scandalous trademarks is distinct from the ban on disparaging marks because it is not based on the speaker’s viewpoint, the Federal Circuit ultimately concluded that it also violated the First Amendment. “[W]e conclude the provision impermissibly discriminates based on content in violation of the First Amendment,” the Federal Circuit’s opinion states.
In reaching its decision, the appeals court rejected the USPTO’s argument that Section 2(a) did not implicate free speech concerns because trademark registrations are a government subsidy or a limited public forum. It also concluded that ban on scandalous trademarks would not survive even under the less onerous intermediate scrutiny standard for commercial speech.
Notably, the Federal Circuit did agree that the “trademark at issue [‘FUCT’] is vulgar.” Nonetheless, it concluded that the “government has offered no substantial government interest for policing offensive speech” in the context of its trademark registration program. “There are words and images that we do not wish to be confronted with, not as art, nor in the marketplace,” the court noted. “The First Amendment, however, protects private expression, even private expression which is offensive to a substantial composite of the general public.”
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Retaining top talent continues to be one of the greatest challenges facing employers today. Even in an employer’s market, the loss of a key employee can disrupt operations and result in significant costs. While compensation plays a role, long-term retention often depends on workplace culture, communication, and employee engagement. One increasingly popular strategy for improving […]
Author: Angela A. Turiano
Secured transactions form the backbone of a wide range of business dealings, including business loans, mortgages, and inventory financing. Because the stakes are often high and relatively minor oversights can have drastic consequences, lenders and borrowers should thoroughly understand how to form an enforceable security agreement that protects their legal rights. What Is a Secured […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Cashing a check marked “paid in full” can be a risky endeavor, particularly if you don’t fully understanding the legal implications. If you are owed more than the amount of the check you accept and deposit, you may waive your right to collect the full disputed amount. That is why you should consider either rejecting […]
Author: Dan Brecher
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025 (OBBBA) significantly impacts federal taxes, credits, and deductions. A key change relating to Qualified Small Business Stock (QSBS) allows greater tax-free gains for investments in startups and other qualifying small businesses. Company founders and other investors should understand how the enhanced tax strategy works or risk missing […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Corporate consolidation involves two or more businesses merging to become a single larger entity. The result is often a stronger and more competitive company that can better navigate today’s competitive marketplace. What Is Corporate Consolidation? Corporate consolidation closely resembles a basic merger transaction. The primary difference is that a consolidation creates an entirely new business […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Business law plays a critical role in nearly every aspect of running a successful enterprise, from negotiating a commercial lease to drafting employee policies to fulfilling corporate disclosure obligations. Understanding what is business law and your legal obligations can help your business run smoothly and build productive relationships with clients, business partners, regulators, and others. […]
Author: Dan Brecher
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!