News & Analysis as of

First Amendment › Reversal › United States Patent and Trademark Office

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech... more +
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech or the press, preventing citizens from peacefully assembling, or interfering with citizens' ability to petition the government for redress of their grievances. The First Amendment is one of the most sacred aspects of the American legal tradition and has spawned a vast body of jurisprudence and commentary. less -
Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Supreme Court Doesn’t Want to Play the Name Game: Prohibition Against Using a Person’s Name in a Registered Mark Without Consent...

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering trademarks utilizing another person's name without consent was constitutional. In Vidal v. Elster 602 U. S. ____ (2024), the Supreme...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Immoral No More: SCOTUS Strikes Down Ban on Registration of Offensive Trademarks

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a 6–3 opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed a 2017 US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision holding the ban on registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks under the Lanham Act to be an...more

Knobbe Martens

Federal Circuit Review - June 2019

Knobbe Martens on

One-year Clock for Filing IPR Petition Applies to Litigants and Parties that Become Privies of the Litigant Prior to Institution. In Power Integrations, Inc v. Semiconductor Components, Appeal No. 2018-1607, the Federal...more

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Supreme Court Ruling Allows Registration of “Scandalous” or “Immoral” Trademarks

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck on

Last week, on June 24, 2019, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” bar to trademark registration constitutes viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment, and thus...more

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP

Client Alert: The Trademarks THE SLANTS, REDSKINS and Now FUCT Are Registerable Trademarks Following the Supreme Court’s Iancu v....

Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg LLP on

In permitting the registration of the “vulgar” term FUCT, the Supreme Court recently extended its 2016 ruling from Matal v. Tam, which allowed the registration of the trademark THE SLANTS for an Asian-American rock band...more

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP

The Supreme Court Says Yes To "Seven Dirty Words"

Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP on

The road to permitting the registration of George Carlin's "seven dirty words" began in 2017, with the Supreme Court holding unconstitutional the Trademark Act's prohibition against registration of trademarks which are...more

Foley Hoag LLP - Making Your Mark

Son of Tam: Supreme Court Strikes Down Lanham Act Section 2(a) For "Immoral" and "Scandalous" Marks

Foley Hoag LLP - Making Your Mark on

In our prior blog entries... we followed the course of Matal v. Tam, the case involving the mark “THE SLANTS.” In that case, the Supreme Court struck down a portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), on...more

ArentFox Schiff

Supreme Court Rules Ban on ‘Immoral or Scandalous’ Trademarks Unconstitutional

ArentFox Schiff on

On Monday, the Supreme Court held that the ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Court found that, as with the recently struck down ban on “disparaging” marks, the ban...more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Lanham Act’s Prohibition Of Immoral And Scandalous Marks Is Officially “FUCT”

Fox Rothschild LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court this week officially pulled the plug on the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of trademarks that comprise “immoral” or “scandalous” matter on First Amendment grounds. The prohibition, found...more

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP

Scandalous Marks? Nothing the Proverbial Bar of Soap Can’t Fix

Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP on

Earlier this week the United States Supreme Court struck down a century-old provision in the Lanham Act that banned the registration of marks deemed “immoral” or “scandalous.” By a 6-3 vote, the Court found in Iancu v....more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on "Immoral and Scandalous" Trademarks

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302, finding that the Lanham Act prohibition against registration of scandalous or immoral trademarks violates the First Amendment of the U.S....more

Fox Rothschild LLP

Immoral & Scandalous Marks Survive

Fox Rothschild LLP on

It’s old news by now, but the Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that the immoral and scandalous trademark ban set forth in Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it disfavors...more

K&L Gates LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on "Immoral" or "Scandalous"

K&L Gates LLP on

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Iancu v. Brunetti that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment....more

Alston & Bird

The First Amendment Wins Again: Supreme Court Holds “Immoral” and “Scandalous” Trademarks Are Registrable

Alston & Bird on

Following its decision on The Slants two years ago, the Supreme Court again lands on the side of free speech in Iancu v. Brunetti. Our Intellectual Property – Trademark & Copyright Group discusses the case of the FUCT...more

Dickinson Wright

Why the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision to Allow Federal Registration of FUCT Impacts Everyday Businesses

Dickinson Wright on

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Iancu v Brunetti that prohibiting federal registration of “immoral or scandalous” marks violates the free speech provisions of the First Amendment. ...more

McCarter & English, LLP

“F” Word Doesn’t Faze Supreme Court – Supreme Court Says USPTO Cannot Refuse To Grant Trademarks Merely Because They Contain...

McCarter & English, LLP on

George Carlin famously observed that there are seven words you can’t say on TV. Erik Brunetti didn’t get the message and thus sought to register a trademark for a line of clothing called “FUCT.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark...more

Jones Day

Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks Are Registrable

Jones Day on

Supreme Court rules that the Lanham Act's statutory bar against registering immoral or scandalous marks violates the First Amendment. On June 24, 2019, in Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. __ (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

FUCT? You Heard That Right: Refusing to Register “Scandalous” and “Immoral” Trademarks is Unconstitutional

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a split decision, held that the federal ban on registering “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks is an unconstitutional violation of free speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The...more

Robins Kaplan LLP

SCOTUS Strikes Down Ban on “Immoral” and “Scandalous” Trademarks

Robins Kaplan LLP on

The Supreme Court has handed another loss to the USPTO by finding a First Amendment violation with the Lanham Act’s prohibition from registering “immoral” and “scandalous” trademarks. Iancu v. Brunetti was brought by an...more

McDermott Will & Emery

SCOTUS Strikes Down Ban on the Registration of Offensive Trademarks

McDermott Will & Emery on

A 6-3 opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States in Iancu v. Brunetti affirmed a Federal Circuit 2017 decision. Both rulings found the ban on the registration of immoral or scandalous trademarks under the Lanham Act...more

Jaburg Wilk

You’re no Longer Screwed if You Want to Register that Vulgar Trademark

Jaburg Wilk on

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Iancu v. Brunetti and struck down a provision in the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) prohibiting the registration of “immoral” and “scandalous” trademarks,...more

Fish & Richardson

First Amendment: 3, Lanham Act: 0 - SCOTUS Holds Lanham Act Prohibition on Immoral and Scandalous Marks is Unconstitutional...

Fish & Richardson on

Following on the heels of  Matal v. Tam in 2017, the Supreme Court on Monday issued a 6-3 opinion in Iancu v. Brunetti striking down the Lanham Act’s prohibition on “immoral” and “scandalous” trademarks, holding that it...more

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC

U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Registering Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks

Bass, Berry & Sims PLC on

Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act states that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) may refuse registration for any trademark that “consists of or comprises immoral . . . or scandalous matter.” On June 24th, 2019, in...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

Section 2(a) is “F**T” – the US Supreme Court strikes down the bar on “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

On June 24, 2019, the US Supreme Court clarified that the Lanham Act’s bar on “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment because it discriminates based on viewpoint. The decision followed the Supreme...more

Lewitt Hackman

SCOTUS Invalidates Scandalous Restrictions on Trademarks

Lewitt Hackman on

In a long-awaited decision, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a restriction on registering trademarks deemed “scandalous” or “immoral”. In the Brunetti case, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked whether the provision of the...more

38 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 2
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide