A dozen years ago, I posed the question of whether it might be possible to incorporate under a crass, indecent or otherwise offensive name. That post mentioned the Court of Appeal's holding in Lee v. Superior Court, 9...more
There is a time and place for everything, or so they say. Eminem and Too $hort are both somewhat polarizing artists. From songs such as Eminem’s “Cleaning Out My Closet” to Too $hort’s infamous “Blow The Whistle”, some of...more
On July 29, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Tavares v. Builders FirstSource Northeast Group, Inc., granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment most notably finding that racist and...more
When defining what conduct constitutes a hostile and offensive working environment under Title VII, the U.S. Supreme Court directs lower courts to look at the context of the behavior in the specific workplace at issue....more
For years, employers seeking to enforce anti-discrimination and harassment policies have faced a vexing Catch-22. While Title VII and other federal and state laws require employers to take action against employees who engage...more
On July 21, 2020, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision in General Motors LLC, 369 NLRB No. 127 (2020) which fundamentally changed the standard for, “determining whether employees have been lawfully...more
LEGISLATION, REGULATIONS & STANDARDS - FDA Releases Guidance on Intentional Adulteration - The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has released the third and final installment of its draft guidance on intentional...more
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
“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
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
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Federal law that allows the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) to reject words and symbols that are considered immoral or scandalous, on grounds that it violates...more
On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the Lanham Act's "immoral or scandalous" prohibition on trademark registration. In Iancu v. Brunetti, ___ U.S. ___, the Court held - in context of...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
The U.S. Supreme Court decided last week to hear the case of Iancu v. Brunetti regarding the possibility that the Lanham Act violates a fashion designer’s freedom of speech...more
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Seattle violated the First Amendment by banning “disparaging” ads on city buses....more
A county violated the First Amendment by refusing to display an advertisement related to global terrorism on its public buses, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held....more
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
It is one of the nightmare scenarios for any HR Department or in-house employment counsel: A white employee directing crude, vicious, racially charged slurs at an African-American employee. Perhaps the most inflammatory of...more
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