Matal v. Tam: SCOTUS Holds Ban on Offensive Trademark Registrations As Violation of First Amendment
In Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal ban on registering disparaging trademark runs afoul of the First Amendment. The landmark decision is a victory for the Asian-American band The Slants. It also dramatically improves the odds that the Washington Redskins will be able to revive its trademarks, which were revoked in 2014 under the same trademark law.
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 “disparaging mark” is defined as one that “dishonors by comparison with what is inferior, slights, deprecates, degrades, or affects or injures by unjust comparison.”
Simon Shiao Tam sought to register the mark “The Slants” in connection with his American-Asian dance band of the same name. In support of the registration, Tam and his band members maintained that by using the slur as the name of their group, they would help to “reclaim” the term and drain its denigrating force. Nevertheless, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied the registration, concluding that 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 Trademark Trial and Appeal Board upheld the denial. However, on appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the Lanham Act provision.
“Whatever our personal feelings about the mark at issue here, or other disparaging marks, the First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others,” Judge Kimberly Moore wrote on behalf of the majority. As she further noted in the court’s opinion, the Constitution protects free speech “even when speech inflicts great pain.”
Supreme Court Holds Trademark Ban Violates First Amendment
The Supreme Court ruled this week, in an 8-0 decision, that it agrees with the Federal Circuit ruling. “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 reaching its decision, the Court rejected the Government’s argument that registered trademarks constitute government speech, which is outside the purview of the First Amendment. “It is far-fetched to suggest that the content of a registered mark is government speech. If the federal registration of a trademark makes the mark government speech, the Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently,” Justice Alito wrote. “It is saying many unseemly things. It is expressing contradictory views. It is unashamedly endorsing a vast array of commercial products and services. And it is providing Delphic advice to the consuming public.”
The Court went on to hold that the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment because it amounts to viewpoint discrimination, despite its ban on all disparaging marks. “It applies equally to marks that damn Democrats and Republicans, capitalists and socialists, and those arrayed on both sides of every possible issue. It denies registration to any mark that is offensive to a substantial percentage of the members of any group. But in the sense relevant here, that is viewpoint discrimination: Giving offense is a viewpoint.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam may open the floodgates for new trademark applications for offensive marks. However, businesses should exercise caution in incorporating such terms into their intellectual property portfolios. As highlighted by the backlash faced by the Washington Redskins, the risk of negative publicity and alienating certain customers may or may not outweigh the advantages of registering a disparaging mark.
Do you have any questions regarding SCOTUS’ lifting of the offensive trademark registration ban? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, David Einhorn, at 201-806-3364.
Top 5 Causes Leading to Construction Defect Litigation
The five most common causes of construction defect litigation are design defects, substandard materials, workmanship defects, code violations, and subsurface defects. Because these flaws can compromise a building’s integrity, functionality, or safety, they frequently lead to disputes involving multiple parties and high financial stakes. Key takeaways: What is Construction Defect Litigation? Construction litigation is complex, […]
How to Protect Your New Jersey Business When Going through a Divorce
The most effective ways to protect your business in a divorce are put in place before one begins: a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, clean separation of business and personal finances, and divorce contingencies built into your operating or buy-sell agreements. If divorce is already underway, the priorities shift to establishing how the business is classified […]
The most common franchise disputes involve breach of contract, franchise termination and non-renewal, intellectual property rights, territorial encroachment, royalty and fee payments, franchisor support obligations, and violations of state franchise laws such as the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. Franchisors and franchisees can often resolve these conflicts by providing written notice detailing the dispute and […]
Reputational Risk and Legal Exposure: Why New Jersey Businesses Must Manage Them Together
New Jersey businesses must manage legal and reputational risk together because modern disputes play out on two fronts at once: the legal proceeding itself and the court of public opinion, where customers, employees, investors, and business partners often reach conclusions long before a judge or jury has had the opportunity to evaluate the facts. Success […]
Eviction Is Not Always the End: Understanding Post-Possession Rent Claims in New Jersey and New York
No. An eviction does not automatically end a tenant’s obligation to pay rent. Post-eviction rent claims are common because recovering possession resolves who has the right to occupy the premises, but it does not extinguish the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease. Whether unpaid or future rent remains owed depends on three factors: the lease’s […]
Company Dissolved? Legal and Financial Consequences to Expect
A company is dissolved; legally, it ceases to exist. Accordingly, dissolution results in significant legal and financial consequences. It is a process that must be properly managed to avoid continuing liability. The Corporate Dissolution Process Corporate dissolution is the legal process of formally closing a corporation, paying its debts and distributing the remaining assets. Most […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
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!
