In 'Slants' Case, Court Correctly Rejects Disparagement Clause
With the Tam case, the Supreme Court has added another decision to our lexicon of strong First Amendment cases by reiterating in a new and different context that viewpoint or content-based discrimination will not be tolerated.
August 18, 2017 at 03:23 PM
7 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court has been a strong and vigorous protector of free speech. Thus, its recent decision striking down the Lanham Act's disparagement clause as “offending a bedrock First Amendment principle,” while welcome, is not surprising. In that case, Matal v. Tam (decided June 19, 2017), the court unanimously held in an opinion by Justice Alito, that trademark protection could not be denied for the name of an Asian-American rock group, “The Slants,” even though the group acknowledged that the name is a derogatory term for persons of Asian descent.
In the Patent and Copyright Office, the trademark application of the group's lead singer, Simon Tam, collided with federal law that allowed a trademark application to be denied if the mark comprises “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” (15 U.S.C. §1052(a)). Finding that the name, “The Slants,” fell within that description, that office denied the application. The en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, however, found the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional—a holding that the Supreme Court affirmed.
Tam chose the name, “The Slants,” he said, not to disparage but to “reclaim” and “take ownership” of stereotypes, thereby showing pride in people of Asian ethnicity. In rightly ruling for Tam, the court rejected the government's argument that trademarks are speech by the government and therefore not subject to the First Amendment because the government does not, of necessity, have to maintain viewpoint neutrality. As the court explained, “[i]f private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints.” Moreover, if federal registration turns a trademark into government speech, the government is “babbling prodigiously and incoherently,” expressing contradictory views and endorsing many commercial products.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
- 5Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
Who Got The Work
Charles A. Weiss of Holland & Knight has entered an appearance for Rafael Badalov in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed July 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Lee Law on behalf of Otter Products LLC, accuses the defendant of selling counterfeit phone cases and accessories bearing the plaintiff's 'OtterBox' trademark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nina R. Morrison, is 1:24-cv-05214, Otter Products, LLC v. Badalov et al.
Who Got The Work
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Benjamin Hershkowitz, Richard W. Mark and Casey J. McCracken and R. Scott Johnson, Thomas M. Patton and Cara S. Donels have entered appearances for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. and MidAmerican Energy Co., respectively, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 17 in Iowa Southern District Court by Nyemaster Goode PC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., asserts six patents related to sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephen H. Locher, is 4:24-cv-00243, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.
Who Got The Work
Michael J. Hickey and Michael L. Jente of Lewis Rice LLC have stepped in to represent Tidal Wave Management in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 18 in Missouri Western District Court by Husch Blackwell on behalf of Waterway Gas & Wash Co., accuses the defendant of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Clean Car Club' mark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., is 4:24-cv-00471, Waterway Gas & Wash Company v. Tidal Wave Management LLC.
Who Got The Work
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz partners Lauren M. Kofke and William Savitt have stepped in to represent CVS Health and and its top officials in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Chaya Sara Kaufmann, accuses the defendants of failing to disclose that they used misleading forecasts to set premium plans which overstated the profitability of the company's health care benefits segment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06595, Kaufmann v. Lynch et al.
Who Got The Work
Robert L. Wallan from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman has entered an appearance for Findlay Management Group in a pending complaint for declaratory judgment. The complaint, filed on Aug. 8 in Nevada District Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Skarzynski Marick & Black on behalf of Houston Casualty Co., seeks to declare that no insurance policy exists between Houston Casualty and Findlay due to there not being an adequate form of delivery and claims that if delivery was substantiated it is rescinded based on material omissions and misrepresentations. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, is 2:24-cv-01459, Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250