Legal News

Federal Court to Decide Whether Immoral Trademarks Violate the First Amendment
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

A federal court will determine whether “smutty” or “immoral” trademarks may be banned.

Summary: A federal court will determine whether “smutty” or “immoral” trademarks may be banned.

According to CorpCounsel.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals will soon decide whether banning “smutty” or “immoral” trademarks is a violation of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

  
What
Where


The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused to allow Katy Perry to trademark “Left Shark.”

The federal court recently supported the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to deny registration for the trademark “The Slants.” In its refusal, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office noted Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which says that trademarks shall be rejected if they are comprised of “immoral, deceptive or scandalous matter” that denigrates people or entities, bringing them into “contempt or disrepute.” According to Reuters, the Asian-American band was denied the trademark because its name disparaged those of Asian ethnicity.

A group of law schools has joined the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office pilot program.

Get JD Journal in Your Mail

Subscribe to our FREE daily news alerts and get the latest updates on the most happening events in the legal, business, and celebrity world. You also get your daily dose of humor and entertainment!!




Michael Palmisciano of Sullivan & Worcester explains, “In their briefs, the parties are to specifically address the following issue: Does the bar to registration of disparaging marks … violate the First Amendment?” The pending decision could have a significant impact on trademark law, especially if the court finds the ban unconstitutional. For example, trademarks such as “Redskins” may be acceptable, according to TrendingTrademarks.com. Additionally, Palmisciano said that, even though the court is not addressing “scandalous” and “immoral” marks, the court may include these issues in its decision.

Palmisciano

Palmisciano



Do you think the court will ban the trademarks?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Last year, the trademark “Redskins” was rejected.

Source: CorpCounsel.com

Photo credit: trademarkapplicationhq.com, sandw.com (Palmisciano)

 



 

Interesting Legal Sites You May Like


BCG FEATURED JOB

Locations:

Keyword:



Search Now

General Municipal Law Attorney with land use experience

USA-CA-Oakland

Oakland office of our client seeks general municipal law attorney with experience advising public ag...

Apply Now

Mid-level Restructuring Attorney with bankruptcy experience

USA-DC-Washington

Washington, D.C. office of our client seeks mid-level restructuring attorney with 4-6 years of exper...

Apply Now

Senior Land Use Attorney with experience

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office of our client seeks senior land use attorney with 7+ years of experience. The c...

Apply Now

Attorney with 3-5 years of civil litigation experience

USA-IN-Merrillville

Merrillville office of our client seeks attorney with preferably 3-5 years of civil litigation exper...

Apply Now

RELEVANT JOBS

Civil & Business Litigation / Transactional Attorney

USA-CA-Clovis

Law firm with primary emphasis in Business & Civil Litigation and transactional work, seeks confiden...

Apply now

LITIGATION ATTORNEY

USA-CA-Emeryville

Boutique East Bay litigation defense firm is seeking a junior to mid-level attorney. Candidates for ...

Apply now

Family Law Paralegal

USA-NJ-Parsippany

The right person for this job will grasp basic and complex divorce and family law issues, have stron...

Apply now

Products Liability & Mass Tort Litigation Associate

USA-GA-Atlanta

The candidate must have 1- 5 years of civil litigation experience, preferably with some background i...

Apply now

Most Popular

SEARCH IN ARCHIVE

To Top