News & Analysis as of

Matal v Tam Lanham Act Iancu v. Brunetti

Morrison & Foerster LLP

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

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

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

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Tom Brady Gets Sacked at the USPTO

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

Love him or hate him, everyone agrees that NFL Quarterback Tom Brady is terrific, except the USPTO.  Earlier this year, Mr. Brady’s company filed to register the trademark “Tom Terrific” for t-shirts and various other...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

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

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?

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

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

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

Skadden's 2019 Insights: 2018-19 Supreme Court Update

Much of the attention on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018-19 term has concerned its composition or its handling of cases involving some of the signature initiatives of President Donald Trump’s administration. Less noticed...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

16 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide