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.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
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.
Supreme Court Lifts Ban on Offensive Trademark Registrations
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
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.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
