United States law contains a seeming contradiction when it comes to trademarks – the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech while the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act prohibited the registration of trademarks that were deemed disparaging by the government attorney examining the trademark application. This apparent contradiction was resolved when the Supreme Court held the Disparagement Clause was unconstitutional, allowing Simon Tam to register the trademark ‘The Slants’ for his rock band.
Tam and ‘The Slants’
Simon Tam is the lead singer of the rock group ‘The Slants.’ ‘Slants’ is considered a derogatory term for Asians or persons of Asian heritage in the United States. Tam named his band ‘The Slants’ to ‘reclaim’ the term and deprive it of its denigrating meaning. Tam sought registration of the standard-character mark THE SLANTS on the Principal Register at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The USPTO refused registration under the Disparagement Clause. Tam appealed at the USPTO; the decision was affirmed.
Tam took his fight to the federal courts. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ultimately determined that the Disparagement Clause was facially unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The government appealed and the Supreme Court, in a series of opinions, but with all justices (except Justice Gorsuch, who did not consider the case) agreeing in the outcome, concluded that the Disparagement Clause was unconstitutional.
Improper Restriction on Free Speech
The Court first determined that federal registration of trademarks “confers important legal rights and benefits on trademark owners.” Next, the Court determined that “the Disparagement Clause applies to marks that disparage members of a racial or ethnic group” and proceeded to determine whether the Disparagement Clause violates the Free Speech Clause. The government advanced three arguments that the Disparagement Clause is constitutional: (1) trademarks are government speech, not private speech; (2) trademarks are a form of government subsidy; and (3) it should be tested under a new ‘government-program’ doctrine. The Court rejected all three.
First, the Court cautioned that “[i]f private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints…we must exercise great caution before extending our government-speech precedents.” Differentiating Tam from government speech jurisprudence, and noting that “registration does not constitute approval of a mark,” the Court determined that trademark registration does not constitute government speech. The Court reasoned that marks are required to be registered unless an exception applies and that numerous marks are registered that express viewpoints contradictory to other registered marks. “If the federal registration of a trademark makes the mark government speech, the Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently…what does the Government have in mind when it advises to “make.believe” (Sony), ‘Think different’ (Apple), ‘Just do it’ (Nike), or ‘Have it your way’ (Burger King)?” “Trademarks are private, not government, speech.”
Next, the Court addressed the ‘government subsidy’ theory. The Court quickly differentiated government subsidy jurisprudence: “[t]he federal registration of a trademark is nothing like the programs at issue in [those] cases. The PTO does not pay money to parties seeking registration of a mark.”
Finally, the Court addressed the novel ‘government-program’ theory, noting it “simply merges our government-speech cases and the…subsidy cases in an attempt to construct a broader doctrine that can be applied to the registration of trademarks.” The Court determined that the Disparagement Clause engages in viewpoint discrimination by determining what a substantial percentage of the members of any group would deem ‘offensive’ and noting that “[g]iving offense is a viewpoint.”
Having rejected the government’s arguments, and finding that the Disparagement Clause failed to meet the requirements of both strict- and relaxed-scrutiny, the Court affirmed the Federal Circuit’s decision that the Disparagement Clause is unconstitutional.
Football and the Future
The Court was clear that its decision applies only to the Disparagement Clause; the “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous” portion of Section 1052 remains constitutional, for now. The term “immoral” remains in United States trademark law, but, given Tam, it is substantially narrowed when compared to other jurisdictions as it cannot apply to any persons or groups of peoples (such as cultures) and is therefore limited to things other than persons (such as activities or beliefs).
The decision also ended the long-running litigation over the Washington Redskins trademark. For over 25 years, various groups have attacked the Washington Redskins trademarks, while the team’s owner has vowed he would “NEVER” change the name. In 2014, the USPTO agreed with Amanda Blackhorse, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation, a federally recognized Indian tribe, and scheduled the Redskins’ marks for cancellation. The team appealed the decision; that appeal was pending when Tam was decided. With Tam resolved, Ms. Blackhorse and the government have stated they will stop prosecuting their case; the Redskins marks will remain registered at the USPTO.
It is unclear whether registration denials based on ‘immoral’ or ‘scandalous’ will withstand scrutiny by the courts. Given the decision in Tam it seems likely that some marks rejected on ‘immoral’ or ‘scandalous’ grounds would have viable claims under the Free Speech Clause. After all, if “[g]iving offense is a viewpoint,” determining what is immoral or scandalous would likewise be a viewpoint subject to viewpoint discrimination.
Search Blog
Follow Us
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Strikes Down the DOL’s Increased Salary Thresholds for Executive, Administrative, Professional, And Highly Compensated Employee Overtime Exemptions
- Breaking News: FinCEN Postpones Beneficial Ownership Reporting Deadlines for Companies Impacted by Recent Major Storms
- What You Need to Know About the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Build America TIFIA Loan
- Breaking News: Federal Judge Blocks Nationwide Implementation of the FTC’s New Rule Banning Noncompete Agreements
- September 4th is Almost Here: How Employers Can Prepare for the Upcoming Effective Date of the FTC’s Non-Compete Rule
- Florida’s New Statutory Home Warranty: What Home Builders Need to Know
- Orange County Proposes Temporary Suspension Ordinance on New Development Applications
- Raising the Roof: The U.S. Department of Labor Announces Rule Raising Salary Thresholds for Overtime Exemptions
- New Guidelines Anticipated Following HHS’s Health Cybersecurity Concept Paper
- SECURE 2.0 and Protecting Your Designated Beneficiaries
Popular Categories
- Employment and Labor
- Litigation (Labor & Employment)
- Construction
- Department of Labor
- Business of Real Estate
- Landlord-Tenant
- Construction Litigation
- Real Estate Law
- Salary
- Competition
- Cybersecurity
- Intellectual Property
- Appeals
- Construction
- Contracts
- Litigation
- Trusts and Estates
- Public Private Partnership
- Data Security
- Business
- Supreme Court
- Development/Land Use
- Technology
- IP Litigation
- Privacy
- Litigation (Appellate)
- Patents
- Business
- Public Finance
- Regulatory Compliance
- Florida Government Contracts
- Foreclosures
- Trademark
- Contracting
- Health Care
- Financial Institutions
- Compliance
- Estate planning
- International Dispute Resolution
- Florida Public Contracts
- Government Contracting
- Government Contracts
- Property Tax
- Government
- Conveyances
- Lease
- Appellate Blog
- Patent Office
- Insurance
- Wealth planning
- Federal Government Contracting
- Florida Bid Protests
- Public Contracts
- Infringement
- Cyber fraud
- Proposal Writing
- Public Bidding
- GAO
- Bid Protest
- International Arbitration and Litigation
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Arbitration
- International
- Restrictive Covenants
- Grant Writing
- Copyright
- Promissory Notes
- Title
- Small Business
- Florida Procurement
- Public procurement
- Consumer Privacy
- PTAB
- General Liability
- Technology
- International Arbitration
- Liens and encumbrances
- Liens
- Creditor's Rights
- Bidding
- Attorneys' Fees
- Inter Partes Review
- Consumer Protection
- Power Generation
- Regulation
- Venue
- Contracting
- Government Vendor
- State Government Contracts
- Ad Valorem Assessments
- Florida Administrative Law
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Bankruptcy
- Florida Public Procurement
- Russia-Related Arbitration
- Mortgages
- FINRA
- Record on Appeal
- Rehearing
- Eviction
- Loan guaranties
- Patents - Assignor Estoppel
- Statute of limitations
- Statute of repose
- Dispute Resolution
- Liens
- Maritime
- Damages
- Briefing
- Request for Proposal
- Patents - Obviousness
- Commercial Brokerage
- Trade Secrets
- Bid Writing
- Florida Bidding Strategies
- Renewal
- Attorneys' Fees
- Florida County Lands
- Florida Economic Incentive Packages
- Jury Instructions
- Stay
- Design Professionals
- Certiorari
- Forum Selection
- email hacking
- Offers of Judgment
- Prevailing Party
- Settlements
- Assignment of Contract
- Assignment of Proceeds
- Designer Liability
- Lis Pendens
- Appellate Jurisdiction - Deadlines
- Banking
- Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure
- Finality
- Fintech
- Marketing/Advertising
- Preservation
- Unlicensed Contracting
- Evidence
- Evidence
- Expert
- Expert Science
- Federal Supply Schedule
- Florida Public Records Law
- Mootness
- Socio-Economic Programs
- Sunshine Law
- Veteran Owned Business
- Homestead
- Partnerships and LLCs
- Standing
Editors
- Of Counsel
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
- Of Counsel
- Senior Associate
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Associate
- Partner
- Partner
- Partner
Archives
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- February 2024
- November 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016