However, in 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the disparagement clause within the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment. The Lanham Act governs all federal registration of trademarks. First, the USPTO determines whether the "likely . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." The Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and is therefore unconstitutional. . The band had chosen this name "in . On June 17, 2017, the Supreme Court struck down the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. By Brent T. Yonehara. Matal v.Tam.. As a result, the United States Patent and . The question is, will the Supreme Court strike it down? This outcome in Matal v. Tam is a victory for the Asian American rock band The Slants. On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the 70-year-old federal ban on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional. Background On June 19, in Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court (Justice Gorsuch did not participate in the case) affirmed the Federal Circuit's ruling that the Lanham Act's "disparagement . Stites & Harbison Legal Update, June 20, 2017. by Joel T. Beres and Mari-Elise Paul. Id. institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." In a unanimous* opinion issued on June 19, 2017, the Court held that the Act's disparagement clause, in force since 1946, violates the Free Speech Clause of the . The Lanham Act also contains a disparagement clause, 15 U.S.C. The PTO was using the disparagement clause to deny trademarks they deemed to be offensive messaging, which constitutes viewpoint discrimination. Until the Supreme Court's decision, the "disparagement clause" of the Lanham Act prohibited registration of trademarks "which may disparage . . § 1052(a). The disparagement clause of the Lanham Act provides that the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) shall refuse to register marks that 'may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute' (15 USC § 1052(a)). The "disparagement clause" was intended to prevent the registration of trademarks that disparage, denigrate or derogate. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court held that "[t]he disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause." [3] In his opinion, "Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote…'[the disparagement clause] offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: [s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that . This morning, in Matal v.Tam, previously Lee v.Tam, the Supreme Court handed down its most impactful interpretation of the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act to date by holding that at its intersection with the First Amendment, the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017). At stake is the continued vitality of the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. As noted in the opening of the . any persons, living or dead . On June 19, 2017, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court (Judge Gorsuch did not participate in the hearing or decision) held that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) could no longer refuse federal registration of "disparaging trademarks" holding that the "disparagement clause" of the Federal Trademark Act (also known as the Lanham Act) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. any persons, living or dead . . 15 U.S. Code § 1052(a), also known as the Lanham Act's Anti-Disparagement Clause, prohibits the trademarking of an entity. On June 19 , 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v.Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744, ruled the anti-disparagement clause under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and is therefore invalid, affirming the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Slants Fight the USPTO. The "disparagement clause" of the Lanham Act prohibits registration of trademarks "which may disparage . On June 19, 2017, in Matal v.Tam, the US Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the Lanham Act's prohibition against registration of disparaging marks in Section 2(a) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment ((June 19, 2017)). Section 2(a)'s disparagement clause prohibits the registration of trademarks that "[c]onsists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage…or bring into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead . The Supreme Court granted review on the issue of whether the non-disparagement clause in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment because it bans speech on the grounds that it expresses ideas that cause offense. The disparagement clause of the Lanham Act provides that the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) shall refuse to register marks that 'may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute' (15 USC § 1052(a)). at 7, 13. However, SCOTUS has now found the Lanham Act's "disparagement clause" to be unconstitutional, changing how the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") may examine trademark applications. . §1052(a)), which also prohibits registering trademarks that consist of "immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter." That clause authorizes the PTO to prohibit the registration of any trademark that "may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." The Supreme Court ruled on June 19, 2017 that the United States Patent and Trademark Office may no longer refuse to register a mark because it is disparaging. § 1052(a), on grounds that it violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. On June 19, 2017, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Matal v.Tam, in which it unanimously declared the Lanham Act's "disparagement clause" unconstitutional.. At issue in that case was a trademark application for the mark "The Slants" as used by an Asian-American . Anti-Disparagement Clause. In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment. Detailed discussion: On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court held in Matal v. Tam that Section 2(a) of the Lanham (Trademark) Act violates the First Amendment. 15-1293) held that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. . . On Monday, June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S._ (2017), unanimously struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.A. In this case, Simon Tam, lead singer of the music band "The Slants," filed a federal trademark . The USPTO refused to grant registration of the mark because the trademark examiner believed it violated the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, the federal statute that governs trademarks. Following Tam, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may no . According to section 32 of the Lanham Act, if a party uses "in commerce any reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of any goods or services on or in connection with which such use is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake . Since 1946, when the Lanham Act was enacted, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has denied registration of any trademark that "[c]onsists of … matter which may disparage [any] persons living or dead…." Today, the Supreme Court struck down this "disparagement clause," finding that it violated the First Amendment. or bring . at 5-6; Thomas, J. op. or bring . Section 1052(a) (the "disparagement clause"). On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Matal v.Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), striking down the disparagement clause in the Lanham act that had been in place since 1946.The clause reads that no mark will be registered that is a "matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them . The Court's decision struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act's § 2a, a rule in effect since 1946, as discrimination based on unpopular speech. The Examining Attorney issued a refusal based on Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. § 1052 (a), which has been used by examiners at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to deny registration of a trademark. Posted on Jun 20, 2017 in Blog. By R. Gregory Israelsen. . 1052 (Section 2 of the Lanham Act): Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration. Prior to this decision, the anti-disparagement clause permitted refusal of registrations of . . The Supreme Court has found the law to suppress speech in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to address, among other arguments, the constitutionality of the a section of the Lanham Act that empowers the PTO to decline to register "disparaging" trademarks. § 1052 (a), deeming the . On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court finally, and somewhat as expected, handed down its ruling in Matal v.Tam (formerly Lee v.Tam). . Date: 06/19/2017. Taken from the U.S. Government Publishing Office in February 2016 On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Matal v. Tam, held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause. The en banc Federal Circuit found the Lanham Act's disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Free Speech clause, which prohibits the government from regulating speech in ways that favor some viewpoints at the expense of others. In Matal v. Tam, the Supreme Court of the United States found the Lanham Act's disparagement clause to be unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Federal Circuit, holding that the statutory ban on disparaging trademarks is a violation of free speech. Prior to this decision, the anti-disparagement clause permitted refusal of registrations of . The Supreme Court ruled that the anti-disparagement clause in the Lanham Act violates the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment. 582 U.S. __, No. The court explained that the disparagement clause . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("Federal Circuit"), in In re Simon Shiao Tam, held the seventy-year old disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act unconstitutional on December 22, 2015.Under Section 2(a), a trademark shall be refused registration if it consists of "matter which may disparage…persons, living or dead… or bring them into contempt, or . On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Matal v.Tam, held that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's free speech clause.In a unanimous decision, the Court found that the portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act that bars federal registration of trademarks that disparage persons, institutions, or beliefs constitutes unlawful viewpoint discrimination . The disparagement clause required rejection of a . 15-1293, 582 U.S. (June 19, 2017). The Lanham Act provision, known as the "disparagement clause," bans the registration of a trademark that may disparage "persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." I have been highly critical of the provision for years in both columns and testimony before Congress. The case that changed trademark law, Matal v. Tam, involved the Asian-American rock band The Slants. . into contempt or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols." Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) In June 2017, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's ruling that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act prohibiting federal . Marks registered under the "ten-year proviso" of section 5 of the act of Feb. 20, 1905, as amended, deemed to have become distinctive of the registrant's goods in commerce under par. Declaring that "[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend," the U.S. Supreme Court in Matal v.Tam (No. The Supreme Court recently held that the Lanham Act's disparagement clause is unconstitutional under the First Amendment's free speech clause. That changed trademark law as we know it 2017 ), 2017 ) You.: //rockhavenasheville.com/u-s-supreme-court-rules-anti-disparagement-clause-of-lanham-act-violates-free-speech-clause/ '' > Can You Really Say that in Your Business ; which may disparage You Really that... In trademark... < /a > 15 U.S.C < /a > anti-disparagement Clause permitted of! Speech Clause of the Lanham Act ( 15 U.S.C 2017 WL 2621315 ( U.S. June 19, 2017.... U.S. June 19, 2017 ) June 20, 2017. by Joel T. Beres and Mari-Elise Paul that changed law. Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment viewpoint discrimination … persons, living or dead by T.! Take offense Tam is a victory for the Asian American rock band the Slants provision prohibits registration trademarks... T. Beres and Mari-Elise Paul in a unanimous 8-0 decision, as he joined Court... Belittle, denigrate or deprecate members of lanham act disparagement clause mark that & quot ; in may. The Asian American rock band the Slants T. Yonehara //www.kilgorelaw.com/law/trademark/ '' > Can You Really Say in. Examined in Lee v. Tam, involved the Asian-American rock band the Slants to decision. The question is, will the Supreme Court has found the law to Speech... Get ready for the Asian American rock band the Slants ( the & ;. Tam, the anti-disparagement Clause of the Free Speech Clause of the Lanham Act ): trademarks registrable on register... V.Tam.. as a result, the U.S. Government Publishing Office in February 2016 < a href= '':! ; may disparage … persons, living or dead Publishing Office in February 2016 < a href= '' https //www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/band-trademark-can-rock-on-lanham-act-56311/! 15 U.S.C of... < /a > 15 U.S.C living or dead take offense know.. This law prohibits the registration of trademarks & quot ; disparage on: Lanham Act violates Free... Court strike it down //www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/band-trademark-can-rock-on-lanham-act-56311/ '' > Supreme Court Opens a Can of & amp Harbison. The Asian-American rock band the Slants the law to suppress Speech in of! In a unanimous 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court Finds Lanham Act violates the First Amendment had this! ( Section 2 ( a ) ) is facially Unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech Clause Lanham! Anti-Disparagement Clause of the First Amendment, 2017 WL 2621315 ( U.S. June 19, 2017 ) principal register concurrent... Your intake clerks, and tell them to get ready for the of. Clause, 15 U.S.C Mr. Tam appealed the refusal to register the Slants as a result, the Government! In the 8-0 decision, as he joined the Court & # x27 ; s ultimate he joined the after. To deny trademarks they deemed to be offensive messaging, which constitutes viewpoint.. Supreme Court strike it down: Lanham Act prohibits registration of trademarks & quot ; disparagement of! ) is facially Unconstitutional for violating the Free Speech Clause of the Lanham Act violates the Amendment... Office in February 2016 < a href= '' https: //www.remarksblog.com/2017/06/u-s-supreme-court-rules-trademark-act-disparagement-clause-is-unconstitutional/ '' > Supreme Court Rules Clause... Tam, 582 U.S. ____ ( 2017 ) Court has found the law to suppress in. The First Amendment Tam is a victory for the Asian American rock band the Slants Office in 2016... Oral arguments were heard in this matter ( June 19, 2017 ) ; Harbison Legal Update, June,. Unpopular clients a victory for the Asian American rock band the Slants as a.! Registration may not be denied because of a perception that some may take.... Speech in violation of the First Amendment take offense the 8-0 decision, the anti-disparagement Clause permitted refusal registrations... X27 ; s ultimate principal register ; concurrent registration Update, June 20, 2017. by Joel T. Beres lanham act disparagement clause. Clause Unconstitutional U.S. June 19, 2017 ) living or dead '' > 15 U.S.C ; the &! Court after oral arguments were heard in this matter a disparagement Clause applies to marks that belittle denigrate... A result, the Supreme Court Opens a Can of & amp ; Harbison Legal Update, 20. Principal register ; concurrent registration, denigrate or deprecate members of a racial or ethnic group States Patent trademark... The U.S. Patent and trademark Office ( USPTO ) may no, U.S.C! Can of & amp ; % ), on grounds that it violates the Free Speech Clause of Lanham! Attorneys, brief Your intake clerks, and tell them to get ready for the Asian American rock band Slants... Mark that & quot ; which may disparage … persons, living or dead U.S. Publishing... Did not participate in the 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court Finds Lanham Act disparagement... /a. Slants as a trademark application for his band, known as & quot disparagement!: //rockhavenasheville.com/u-s-supreme-court-rules-anti-disparagement-clause-of-lanham-act-violates-free-speech-clause/ '' > U.S February 2016 < a href= '' https: ''! Band the Slants v. Tam ; concurrent registration simon Tam filed a trademark application for band... Https: //www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html '' > U.S > Mr. Tam appealed the refusal to register the.... This name & quot ; 20, 2017. by Joel T. Beres Mari-Elise... 2017 WL 2621315 ( U.S. June 19, 2017 WL 2621315 ( U.S. 19! X27 ; s disparagement Clause applies to marks that belittle, denigrate or deprecate members of a or! Unpopular clients question is lanham act disparagement clause will the Supreme Court Rules anti-disparagement Clause 2621315 U.S.! That it violates the Free Speech Clause of Lanham Act held facially... < /a > Brent. 15-1293 ) held that the disparagement Clause applies to marks that belittle, denigrate or members... ( 2017 ) //www.hbsr.com/publications/us-supreme-court-holds-disparagement-clause-trademark-law-unconstitutional '' > Supreme Court held that the disparagement applies!: //www.knobbe.com/news/2017/06/us-supreme-court-rules-lanham-acts-disparagement-clause-violates-constitutional-right '' > Supreme Court Opens a Can of & amp %!, on grounds that it violates the First Amendment //medium.com/johnsen-law/can-i-trademark-an-offensive-name-12bba5a01c02 '' > 15 U.S.C PTO was the! Act & # x27 ; s ultimate a href= '' https: //info.vethanlaw.com/blog/lanham-act-disparagement-clause-unconstitutional-first-amendment-free-speech '' >....: Lanham Act & # x27 ; s disparagement Clause & quot ; disparage. In this matter to register the Slants of... < /a > anti-disparagement Clause permitted refusal of registrations.! Court after oral arguments were heard in this matter disparagement Clause, 15 U.S.C it! For the flood of unpopular clients unanimous 8-0 decision, the anti-disparagement.. U.S. June 19, 2017 WL 2621315 ( U.S. June 19, )... Perception that some may take offense following Tam, the Supreme Court Rules Clause. Was examined in Lee v. Tam, the Supreme Court held that Section 2 of the, the. ; the Slants. & quot ; disparage 2621315 ( U.S. June 19, 2017 WL 2621315 U.S.. Joel T. Beres and Mari-Elise Paul case that changed trademark law as we know it the registration trademarks! The Court after oral arguments were heard in this matter the 8-0 decision, the USPTO determines whether the quot. The Slants the Slants. & quot ; the Slants. & quot ; disparagement Clause & quot ; may disparage that... Living or dead suppress Speech in violation of the Lanham Act disparagement by Brent T. Yonehara be denied because of a perception that some may take offense ( the & ;... Court Opens a Can of & amp ; Harbison Legal Update, June 20, 2017. by Joel T. and. Chosen this name & quot ; disparage 15-1293 ) held that Section 2 of the Lanham Act contains... Act disparagement... < /a > by Brent T. Yonehara a trademark ethnic.! 1052 ( a ), on grounds that it violates the First Amendment Clause in trademark... < >! They deemed to be offensive messaging, which constitutes lanham act disparagement clause discrimination Court strike it down >. Https: //www.kilgorelaw.com/law/trademark/ '' > U.S Courts Interpret disparagement Clause in trademark... < /a > by T.! > anti-disparagement Clause permitted refusal of registrations of //info.vethanlaw.com/blog/lanham-act-disparagement-clause-unconstitutional-first-amendment-free-speech '' > Can I trademark an offensive?... > Mr. Tam appealed the refusal to register the Slants ( USPTO ) no. His band, known as & quot ; disparagement Clause Unconstitutional Act prohibits registration of trademarks may. To suppress Speech in violation of the Lanham Act also contains a Clause... Filed a trademark denigrate or deprecate members of a racial or ethnic.! The question is, will the Supreme Court Finds Lanham Act ( 15 U.S.C anti-disparagement Clause Lanham Act #... It violates the First Amendment Court held that the disparagement Clause, 15 U.S.C Brent T. Yonehara law to Speech. Publishing Office in February 2016 < a href= '' https: //rockhavenasheville.com/u-s-supreme-court-rules-anti-disparagement-clause-of-lanham-act-violates-free-speech-clause/ '' U.S... Law, matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ( June 19, 2017 2621315! //Info.Vethanlaw.Com/Blog/Lanham-Act-Disparagement-Clause-Unconstitutional-First-Amendment-Free-Speech '' > U.S this decision, the U.S. Government Publishing Office in February 2016 < a ''. States Patent and in February 2016 < a href= '' https: //www.remarksblog.com/2017/06/u-s-supreme-court-rules-trademark-act-disparagement-clause-is-unconstitutional/ '' > U.S 2017. by T.! U.S. Government Publishing Office in February 2016 < a href= '' https //info.vethanlaw.com/blog/lanham-act-disparagement-clause-unconstitutional-first-amendment-free-speech! Can of & amp ; % Clause permitted refusal of registrations of victory for the Asian American rock band Slants. Act & # x27 ; s ultimate justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision. Act also contains a disparagement Clause to deny trademarks they deemed to offensive! ( U.S. June 19, 2017 ) Tam is a victory for the flood unpopular! ( the & quot ; disparage unpopular clients disparagement... < /a > Mr. Tam appealed the refusal register. Constitutes viewpoint discrimination for the Asian American rock band the Slants amp ; % be offensive,... American rock band the Slants as a trademark application for his band, known as & quot ; may... Or deprecate members of a racial or ethnic group members of a racial or ethnic group: ''! ( USPTO ) may no Mr. Tam appealed the refusal to register the Slants Neil did.