Breaking News

Supreme Court Allows Disparaging Trademarks
Download PDF
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...

Summary: The Supreme Court has ruled that disparaging terms can be trademarked. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court struck down a federal law that blocked offensive trademarks.

The case that the Supreme Court heard involved musician, Simon Tan. The Asian-American created a rock band called “The Slants,” and he used the offensive term against Asians as a way for him to take back the insult. When he tried to register the name with the trademark office, he was denied a trademark on the grounds that the word was disparaging to “persons of Asian descent.”

  
What
Where


After hearing Tan’s case, the high court rejected the Lanhan Trademark Act of 1946 that denies trademark protections to terms that disparage the living and the dead.

“Holding that the registration of a trademark converts the mark into government speech would constitute a huge and dangerous extension of the government-speech doctrine, for other systems of government registration (such as copyright) could easily be characterized in the same way,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

In Alito’s majority opinion, he added that suppressing disparaging speech “endangered” the First Amendment.

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!!




“The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates,” Alito stated. “If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social ‘volatility,’ free speech would be endangered.”

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch did not hear the case, but all of the other justices ruled in Tan’s favor.



After the announcement, legal pundits have already stated that it is very likely that football team The Washington Redskins will benefit from this ruling. After using the name for decades, they had their trademark revoked in 2014 after protests that the name was offensive towards Native Americans.

“The case also has obvious implications for the similar dispute involving the Washington Redskins, who had their trademark canceled under the same statute and theory that the justices invalidated today,” Steve Vladeck, CNN legal analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said to the network. “It should now follow that their trademark also should not have been invalidated.”

Tan wrote on Facebook that he was thrilled his nearly decade-long battle was over and won. When he had first filed the case, he had lost several legal rounds before eventually making his way to the Supreme Court.

“After an excruciating legal battle that has spanned nearly eight years, we’re beyond humbled and thrilled to have won this case at the Supreme Court. This journey has always been much bigger than our band: it’s been about the rights of all marginalized communities to determine what’s best for ourselves,” Tan said.

The Washington Redskins had their trademark revoked in 2014 because of the Lanham Trademark Act, and they had shown their support for Tan’s case by filing an amicus brief. Their own appeal to win back their trademark, however, is a separate legal matter.

“The team is thrilled with today’s unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government,” Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said in a statement. “The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or canceling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion.”

What do you think of the Supreme Court’s ruling? Let us know in the comments below.



 

Interesting Legal Sites You May Like


BCG FEATURED JOB

Locations:

Keyword:



Search Now

Litigation Trial Attorney with 3-5 years of pleading experience

USA-WA-Seattle

Seattle office of our client seeks litigation trial attorney with 3-5 years of experience. The candi...

Apply Now

Corporate Attorney with mergers and acquisitions experience

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Los Angeles office is seeking a corporate attorney with 1-6 years of M&A, corporate finance, securit...

Apply Now

Estate Planning Attorney with 6+ years of experience

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Los Angeles office is seeking an experienced estate planning attorney with 6+ years of experience. C...

Apply Now

Patent Prosecution Associate

USA-IL-Chicago

Chicago office of our client seeks patent prosecution associate with experience. The candidate shoul...

Apply Now

RELEVANT JOBS

Associate - Mid-Level - GL Group

USA-NY-Valhalla

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

Apply now

Mortgage Compliance Analyst

USA-MN-Minnetonka

Job Description: Rubicon Mortgage Advisors LLC, a locally-owned, boutique mortgage lender is seeki...

Apply now

Litigation Legal Assistant

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Qualifications: Candidate should have 2+ years of previous experience supporting multiple atto...

Apply now

Litigation Legal Assistant (10+ Years Experience)

USA-CA-Los Angeles

Qualifications: Candidate should have 10+ years of previous experience supporting multiple att...

Apply now

Most Popular

SEARCH IN ARCHIVE

To Top