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

Business Litigation Attorney

USA-CA-Santa Monica

Santa Monica office of our client seeks business litigation attorney with 1-3 years of experience. T...

Apply Now

Intellectual Property Litigation / Enforcement Associate Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office of our client seeks intellectual property litigation / enforcement associate at...

Apply Now

Corporate Attorney

USA-CA-Menlo Park

Menlo Park office of sophisticated boutique firm is seeking a corporate attorney with experience in ...

Apply Now

Mid-level Computer Science Patent Attorney

USA-CA-San Francisco

San Francisco office of our client seeks mid-level patent attorney with 3-5 years of intellectual pr...

Apply Now

RELEVANT JOBS

Search Docket Administrator

USA-IL-Evanston

Cardinal Intellectual Property is seeking an administrator to help perform a variety of tasks within...

Apply now

Associate - Mid-Level - GL Group

USA-NY-Valhalla

Defense firm seeking mid-level associate for Westchester office to fill General Liability position. ...

Apply now

Hotline & Training Managing Attorney (IMMIGRATION)

USA-NY-New York City

The Hotline & Training Services Managing Attorney will guide, develop, and supervise the Hotline sta...

Apply now

Litigation paralegal

USA-TX-Dallas

We are looking to immediately hire a responsible, highly organized, self-motivated litigation parale...

Apply now

SEARCH IN ARCHIVE

To Top