News & Analysis as of

First Amendment › United States Patent and Trademark Office › Matal v Tam

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

Morrison & Foerster LLP

From Rubio's Joke to the Supreme Court: The Journey of 'Trump Too Small' in Vidal v. Elster

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Does the Lanham Act’s restriction on registration of trademarks that include an individual’s name without the consent of such individual violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, even when the mark expresses...more

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP

Supreme Court to Examine Free Speech Limits in “TRUMP TOO SMALL” Trademark Case

Kohrman Jackson & Krantz LLP on

The intersection of free speech and private business branding is once again in front of the Supreme Court of the United States. On June 5th, the Supreme Court decided to hear Vidal v. Elster, Case 22-704, an appeal from the...more

Snell & Wilmer

USPTO’s Cert Petition Argues Constitutionality of Lanham Act’s Living Individual Restriction

Snell & Wilmer on

USPTO Director Kathi Vidal recently petitioned the Supreme Court to review a Federal Circuit decision in In re Elster. There, the Federal Circuit held the USPTO unconstitutionally applied Lanham Act Section 2(c) (15 U.S.C. §...more

Bodman

Disparaging, Immoral, and Scandalous Trademarks: Just Because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should

Bodman on

At a Glance - Even though the Supreme Court has paved the way for brands to register trademarks that may be considered disparaging, immoral, or scandalous, brand owners are reversing themselves and voluntarily changing....more

Hogan Lovells

Tips for Companies Saying Goodbye to Racial Stereotypes in Branding

Hogan Lovells on

The last year has seen urgent discussions concerning racism, discrimination, police violence, inequality, and social justice come to the forefront of life in the United States. Corporate America – and its brands – responded...more

Fenwick & West LLP

SCOTUS Gives a “FUCT” in Brunetti: First Amendment Supports “Immoral” or “Scandalous” Trademarks

Fenwick & West LLP on

On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court, in Iancu v. Brunetti, struck down the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. Justice Kagan wrote for the 6-3 majority, holding that the...more

International Lawyers Network

No Longer “FUCT” - Scandalous Mark Provision Struck Down By Supreme Court

International Lawyers Network on

What constitutes a “scandalous” trademark? The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been grappling with this question since the enactment of the 1905 Trademark Act, later codified in the 1946 Lanham...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

SCOTUS Paves the Way for FUCT Trademark, Causing a Bit of an Application Sh**storm at the USPTO

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

“FUCT.”  You can pronounce it as four letters, one after the other.  Or you can pronounce it like Justice Kagan as the “past participle form of a well-known word of profanity.”  Either way, the word can be registered as a...more

Lathrop GPM

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

Lathrop GPM on

In a decision that is likely to trigger a rush to register trademarks that may be seen as obscene, vulgar, or profane, the U.S. Supreme Court recently determined, in a 6-3 opinion authored by Justice Elena Kagan, that a...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Supreme Court Strikes Down Ban on Offensive Trademarks

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

On June 24, 2019 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...more

International Lawyers Network

Should Scandalous Trademarks Be Registered?

International Lawyers Network on

Suppose that you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods or services for your business. What if the trademark is immoral or scandalous? Should you register your scandalous trademark with the U.S....more

Snell & Wilmer

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on “Immoral or Scandalous” Trademark Prohibition

Snell & Wilmer on

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti regarding the constitutionality of the portion of Lanham Act, Section 2(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) that prohibits the United...more

BakerHostetler

Protected or Unprotected: The Supreme Court Hears Iancu v. Brunetti

BakerHostetler on

On April 15, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear arguments on whether dirty words and vulgar terms may be registrable as trademarks – and if so, what is the test? Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act currently provides that the...more

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints

The FUCT Mark: Is the Prohibition on Scandalous Marks Unconstitutional?

Mintz - Trademark & Copyright Viewpoints on

The constitutionality of yet another portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act will soon be determined. Following in the footsteps of the blockbuster decision in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (“Tam”), the U.S. Supreme...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court to Address Whether Trademark Protection Is Permitted for Immoral, Scandalous Marks

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court of the United States granted the US Patent and Trademark Office’s (PTO’s) request that it address whether the prohibition of federal trademark protection for “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is invalid under...more

Lathrop GPM

Supreme Court to Decide Whether Ban on “Immoral” or “Scandalous” Trademarks Is Constitutional

Lathrop GPM on

On Jan. 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether the 113-year-old ban on registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. The case involves Erik...more

Snell & Wilmer

How Scandalous! SCOTUS Again Takes up Whether the Lanham Act Violates the First Amendment

Snell & Wilmer on

On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear a case that will decide whether the federal ban on trademark protection for “scandalous” material is unconstitutional. In re Brunetti follows the U.S. Patent...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

Disparaging, Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks in the Supreme Court: Beyond Tam to Brunetti

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets on

This blog has followed the evolving judicial views concerning disparaging trademarks, culminating in the Supreme Court’s decision in in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (June 19, 2017)....more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The “F Word” Taking Center Stage at the U.S. Supreme Court

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On Friday, while some of us may have been muttering a few bad words as we slogged through our post-holiday inboxes, the Supreme Court was toying with a naughty word of its own: FUCT. That’s right. Late last week the Court...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

WTF? USPTO to Continue Refusing Scandalous and Immoral Marks…For Now

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

In light of ongoing litigation over an applicant’s effort to register the mark FUCT for wearing apparel, the USPTO recently issued an Examination Guide concerning the review of trademark applications under Section 2(a) of the...more

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP

For adults only: A peep at immoral and scandalous marks in the US

Eversheds Sutherland (US) LLP on

The landmark case, Matal v. Tam, forever altered the innocence of the trademark landscape. The case, interestingly enough, involved a musical group wanting to trademark a seemingly disparaging mark. ...more

McAfee & Taft

Brunetti decision paves way for offensive (even obscene) trademarks

McAfee & Taft on

Last July, in an article titled “Free speech legal battle changes law on disparaging trademarks,” we reported that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Matal v. Tam that the Lanham Act’s prohibition of disparaging marks was an...more

Jaburg Wilk

Good Time to Try to Register that “#!$@*!ing” Trademark?

Jaburg Wilk on

On June 19, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.) in Matal v. Tam (137 S. Ct. 1744), holding that it violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. ...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Federal Circuit Bleeps Lanham Act Ban on Immoral or Scandalous Marks

McDermott Will & Emery on

Following the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam (i.e., the Slants case) finding the proscription on the registration of disparaging trademarks under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act to be an...more

84 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 4
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