On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-anticipated decision, holding that the so-called “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act is an impermissible restriction on free speech under the First Amendment. The ruling is the culmination of years of litigation, and clears the way for Simon Shiao Tam and the Slants to … Continue reading
Your search matched the following posts:
Update: INTA files amicus brief with SCOTUS in Slants case
On December 16, 2016, the International Trademark Association (“INTA”) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Simon Tam, founder of the Slants. Lee v. Tam, No. 15-1293, Br. Of Amicus Curiae Int’l Trademark Assoc. INTA—a global association comprising more than 7,000 trademark owners and legal practitioners—urged the Court to uphold … Continue reading
USPTO files opening brief in Slants case
The First Amendment does not require the government to support disparaging speech, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) argued in its opening brief filed last week in the “Slants” trademark case currently pending before the Supreme Court. Lee v. Tam, No. 15-1293, Pet. Brief at 20 (Nov. 9, 2016). Background As we’ve previously … Continue reading
Redskins won’t join Slants’ trademark case at SCOTUS
The Supreme Court has refused the Washington Redskins’ request to join The Slants’ case challenging the Lanham Act’s ban on the registration of offensive trademarks. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, Case No. 15-1311 (U.S. Supreme Court’s Order List at 58, Oct. 3, 2016). Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to review The Slants’ case regarding whether … Continue reading
Redskins seek to join Slants case at Supreme Court
While football teams and fans across the country are gearing up for this weekend’s NFL draft, the Washington Redskins will be preparing for another potential showdown—this one at the Supreme Court. The Redskins petitioned the high court on Monday to hear the case over the team’s controversial trademark registrations. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, et. al., … Continue reading
U.S. Supreme Court and “Scandalous” Trademarks
Two years after the United States Supreme Court struck down the ban on disparaging trademarks, the Supreme Court has now struck down the Lanham Act’s similar ban on the registration of scandalous and immoral trademarks at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, 588 U.S. _____ (2019). On June 24, 2019, … Continue reading
Shocking your clients just became passé: US Court takes away the edge from scandalous brands
Thanks to two recent rulings of the US Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit Court, trade marks containing “disparaging”, “immoral” and “scandalous” matter are no longer barred from obtaining registration in the United States of America. In the past, the US Patent and Trade Mark Office (USPTO) had the power … Continue reading
UPDATE: SCOTUS will review ban on offensive marks
Earlier today, the US Supreme Court agreed to review whether the Lanham Act’s ban on offensive trademarks violates the First Amendment. The high court granted certiorari in the case of The Slants, the Asian American rock band that was denied a trademark registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. The relevant provision of the … Continue reading
Supreme Court asked to review disparaging trademarks decision
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case on disparaging trademarks. Petition, Michelle K. Lee, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Petitioner v. Simon Shiao Tam, No. 15-1293 (April 20, 2016). The filing comes after the Federal Circuit struck down the … Continue reading
PTO not required to register disparaging trademark until cert deadline passes
In December 2015, the Federal Circuit struck down the “disparagement” clause of §2(a) of the Lanham Act on First Amendment grounds. However, according to a recent ruling from the court, the USPTO is not required to register disparaging trademarks just yet. In re Tam, No. 16-121 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 30, 2016) (denying petition for writ of … Continue reading