News & Analysis as of

Trademark Registration Certiorari Trademarks

Troutman Pepper

Supreme Court Upholds Names Clause in Trademark Law, Emphasizing Historical and Traditional Foundations

Troutman Pepper on

In a landmark decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of, or...more

Epstein Becker & Green

How Big a Deal Is “Trump Too Small”? – SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

The question of whether a would-be trademark, “TRUMP TOO SMALL,” warrants a First Amendment exception to the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering a living person’s name as a trademark without that person’s permission has...more

Knobbe Martens

A Mark Styled "Generic.Com" May Be Trademark Eligible

Knobbe Martens on

Before the Supreme Court of the United States. On Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Summary: A term styled "generic.com" is not necessarily generic and can be eligible for...more

Akerman LLP - Marks, Works & Secrets

The Parameters of Generic Marks: Booking.com before the Supreme Court

The Lanham Act (“Act”) makes it clear that generic terms cannot be registered as trademarks. But can an online business create a protectable trademark by adding a generic top-level domain (e.g., “.com”) to an otherwise...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court to Consider When a Mark Is Too Generic for Protection

McDermott Will & Emery on

The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on a petition filed by the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) seeking to overturn a district court decision in favor of Booking.com. The PTO argues that the mark is...more

Ward and Smith, P.A.

Dot-Com Hits the Supreme Court

Ward and Smith, P.A. on

Breaking News! What happened? The United States Supreme Court recently announced that it has granted certiorari in United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B.V., a case about whether the addition of...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

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

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

MarkIt to Market - February 2019: Trademark Practice Update: Outrageous! Disgraceful! Appalling!...or is it? SCOTUS to Decide the...

U.S. trademark attorneys received a New Year’s surprise last month when the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Iancu v. Brunetti, the case that should determine the availability of federal trademark...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

Kilpatrick

Immoral and Scandalous Trademarks

Kilpatrick on

On January 4, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by the U.S. Patent and Trademark office in Iancu v. Brunetti. The USPTO seeks to overturn the Federal Circuit’s ruling that the prohibition on...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

Fenwick & West LLP

Supreme Court to Decide if Disparagement Provision in the Lanham Act is Invalid Under the First Amendment

Fenwick & West LLP on

On September 29, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to review Lee v. Tam, better known as “THE SLANTS” case, to assess the constitutionality of the Trademark Office’s refusal to register disparaging marks under Section 2(a) of...more

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Lee v Tam

The Supreme Court agreed on September 29 to consider whether a provision of the Lanham Act that allows the USPTO to refuse to register “disparaging” trademarks violates the constitutional right to free speech. The case is...more

Foley Hoag LLP - Trademark, Copyright &...

Of Slants, Skins and Signs: No Relief For Trademark Applicant Until Supreme Court Weighs In

As part of our continuing monitoring of this issue, we bring you the latest chapter in the saga over the registration of THE SLANTS trademark. After the en banc Federal Circuit struck down Section 2(a) as facially...more

17 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