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.
Arbitration vs. Litigation vs. Mediation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Know Before Signing a Contract
Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Can You Own Part of a New Jersey Business Without a Written Agreement?
Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Crisis-Proofing Your New Jersey Business: Building a Crisis Response Plan Before You Need One
For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Monmouth County's Next Development Wave: What Developers and Investors Need to Know
Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Are Your Conversations with AI Shielded from Discovery? Courts Are Split
Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Guardianships in New Jersey: When a Loved One Can No Longer Manage Personal or Financial Affairs
When a family member can no longer make important decisions for themself, the question is often not whether the family will step in, but whether they have the legal authority to do so. A spouse may manage household finances, or an adult child may arrange medical care and pay bills. Still, informal assistance does not […]
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!
