Matal v. Tam Contents Background Relevant Areas of Law Federal Circuit decision U.S. Supreme Court See also References External links Navigation menu15-12931321§ 1052(a)§ 1052Audioimprove this article582 U.S. ___808 F.3d 1321The Supreme Court, 2016 Term — Leading Cases"Opinion | The Slants on the Power of Repurposing a Slur"0362-4331"Should We Be Able to Reclaim a Racist Insult — as a Registered Trademark?"0362-4331"Asian-American Band Fights To Trademark Name 'The Slants'""Asian-American Group The Slants Head to Supreme Court Over Band Name"Recent Case: Federal Circuit Holds the Lanham Act's Antidisparagement Provision Unconstitutional751 F.3d 1355"In re Simon Shiao Tam - Ex Parte Appeal Brief of Simon Tam of the PTO's Refusal to Register THE SLANTS Trademark | JD Supra"§ 1052(a)502 U.S. 105515 U.S. 819497 U.S. 720812 F.2d 1194288 F.3d 610135 S. Ct. 2218555 U.S. 46061 F.3d 938112 F. Supp. 3d 439http://www.haynesboone.com/news-and-events/news/alerts/2016/01/05/federal-circuit-rules-disparagement-clause-of-2a-of-the-lanham-act-unconstitutionalhttp://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/rock-band-wins-first-amendment-850689https://www.wsj.com/articles/government-cant-reject-trademarks-for-being-disparaging-or-offensive-court-says-1450809668Pet. for Certiorarihttps://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-1293.htm"Justices Strike Down Law Banning Disparaging Trademarks"Clay Calvert, Beyond Trademarks and Offense: Tam and the Justices’ Evolution on Free SpeechCase coverageDisparagement, Contempt, and Disreputee
Everson v. Board of EducationMcCollum v. Board of EducationWalz v. Tax Commission of the City of New YorkLemon v. KurtzmanMarsh v. ChambersMueller v. AllenAguilar v. FeltonBoard of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. GrumetAgostini v. FeltonMitchell v. HelmsZelman v. Simmons-HarrisLocke v. DaveyArizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. WinnStone v. GrahamLynch v. DonnellyBoard of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCrearyCounty of Allegheny v. ACLUMcCreary County v. ACLU of KentuckyVan Orden v. PerryPleasant Grove City v. SummumThe American Legion v. American Humanist AssociationZorach v. ClausonEngel v. VitaleAbington School District v. SchemppStone v. GrahamWallace v. JaffreeLee v. WeismanSanta Fe Independent School District v. DoeElk Grove Unified School District v. NewdowEpperson v. ArkansasEdwards v. AguillardKitzmiller v. Dover Area School DistrictMarsh v. ChambersTown of Greece v. GallowayMcGowan v. MarylandMcDaniel v. PatyEstate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.Texas Monthly, Inc. v. BullockHosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity CommissionReynolds v. United StatesDavis v. BeasonSchneider v. New JerseyCantwell v. ConnecticutMinersville School District v. GobitisMurdock v. PennsylvaniaUnited States v. BallardBraunfeld v. BrownTorcaso v. WatkinsSherbert v. VernerPresbyterian Church v. Hull ChurchWisconsin v. YoderHarris v. McRaeThomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security DivisionUnited States v. LeeBob Jones University v. United StatesBowen v. RoyGoldman v. WeinbergerEmployment Division v. SmithChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of HialeahCity of Boerne v. FloresWatchtower Society v. Village of StrattonCutter v. WilkinsonTrinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. ComerMasterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights CommissionNational Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. BecerraAlien and Sedition ActsMasses Publishing Co. v. PattenSchenck v. United StatesAbrams v. United States Gitlow v. New YorkWhitney v. CaliforniaDennis v. United StatesCommunist Party v. Subversive Activities Control BoardYates v. United Statesclear and present dangerBond v. FloydBrandenburg v. Ohioimminent lawless actionHess v. IndianaNew York Times Co. v. Sullivanactual maliceUnited States v. AlvarezSusan B. Anthony List v. DriehausCantwell v. ConnecticutChaplinsky v. New HampshireTerminiello v. ChicagoFeiner v. New YorkGregory v. ChicagoNational Socialist Party of America v. Village of SkokieR.A.V. v. City of St. PaulSnyder v. PhelpsElonis v. United StatesHague v. CIOSchneider v. New JerseyThornhill v. AlabamaMartin v. City of StruthersMarsh v. AlabamaNiemotko v. MarylandEdwards v. South CarolinaCox v. LouisianaBrown v. LouisianaAdderley v. FloridaCarroll v. Town of Princess AnneCoates v. CincinnatiOrganization for a Better Austin v. KeefeLloyd Corp. v. TannerPruneyard Shopping Center v. RobinsHill v. ColoradoMcCullen v. CoakleyPackingham v. North CarolinaStromberg v. CaliforniaUnited States v. O'BrienCohen v. CaliforniaSmith v. GoguenTexas v. JohnsonUnited States v. EichmanVirginia v. BlackMinersville School District v. GobitisWest Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteWooley v. MaynardAgency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. BecerraAbood v. Detroit Board of EducationCommunications Workers of America v. BeckKeller v. State Bar of CaliforniaLehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'nBoard of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. SouthworthJohanns v. Livestock Marketing AssociationDavenport v. Washington Education AssociationLocke v. KarassKnox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000Harris v. QuinnFriedrichs v. California Teachers Ass'nJanus v. AFSCMEAmerican Communications Association v. DoudsGarner v. Board of Public WorksSpeiser v. RandallKeyishian v. Board of RegentsCommunist Party of Indiana v. WhitcombMinersville School District v. GobitisWest Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteTinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Districtsubstantial disruptionIsland Trees School District v. PicoBethel School District v. FraserHazelwood School District v. KuhlmeierRosenberger v. University of VirginiaMorse v. FrederickRosen v. United StatesUnited States v. One Book Called UlyssesRoth v. United StatesOne, Inc. v. OlesenSmith v. CaliforniaMarcus v. Search WarrantMANual Enterprises v. DayJacobellis v. OhioQuantity of Books v. KansasFreedman v. MarylandGinzburg v. United StatesMemoirs v. MassachusettsRedrup v. New YorkGinsberg v. New YorkStanley v. GeorgiaCohen v. CaliforniaUnited States v. Thirty-seven PhotographsKois v. WisconsinMiller v. CaliforniaParis Adult Theatre I v. SlatonUnited States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of FilmJenkins v. GeorgiaErznoznik v. City of JacksonvilleYoung v. American Mini TheatresNew York v. FerberAmerican Booksellers v. HudnutRenton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.People v. FreemanOsborne v. OhioUnited States v. X-Citement Video, Inc.Reno v. American Civil Liberties UnionUnited States v. Playboy Entertainment GroupAshcroft v. Free Speech CoalitionAshcroft v. American Civil Liberties UnionNitke v. GonzalesUnited States v. WilliamsFederal Communications Commission v. Fox Television StationsAmerican Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. StricklandUnited States v. KilbrideUnited States v. StevensBrown v. Entertainment Merchants AssociationPickering v. Board of EducationPerry v. SindermannBoard of Regents of State Colleges v. RothMt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. DoyleGivhan v. Western Line Consolidated School DistrictConnick v. MyersRankin v. McPhersonWaters v. ChurchillGarcetti v. CeballosBorough of Duryea v. GuarnieriHeffernan v. City of PatersonEx parte CurtisUnited Public Workers v. MitchellUnited States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter CarriersBroadrick v. OklahomaMutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of OhioJoseph Burstyn, Inc. v. WilsonNAACP v. ButtonFreedman v. MarylandVirginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer CouncilHoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate VeteransMatal v. TamValentine v. ChrestensenRowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept.Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human RelationsBigelow v. Commonwealth of VirginiaVirginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer CouncilBates v. State Bar of ArizonaLinmark Associates, Inc. v. WillingboroCentral Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionConsol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'nZauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of OhioPacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of CaliforniaPosadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto RicoSan Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode IslandSorrell v. IMS Health Inc.Buckley v. ValeoFirst National Bank of Boston v. BellottiCitizens Against Rent Control v. City of BerkeleyBrown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign CommitteeRegan v. Taxation with Representation of WashingtonFEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for LifeAustin v. Michigan Chamber of CommerceMcIntyre v. Ohio Elections CommissionColorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FECNixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PACRepublican Party of Minnesota v. WhiteMcConnell v. FECRandall v. SorrellFEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.Davis v. FECCitizens United v. FECMcComish v. BennettAmerican Tradition Partnership v. BullockMcCutcheon v. Federal Election CommissionWilliams-Yulee v. The Florida BarNear v. MinnesotaLovell v. City of GriffinHannegan v. Esquire, Inc.New York Times Co. v. United StatesMiami Herald Publishing Co. v. TornilloNebraska Press Ass'n v. StuartLandmark Communications, Inc. v. VirginiaTory v. CochranTime, Inc. v. HillCox Broadcasting Corp. v. CohnFlorida Star v. B. J. F.Grosjean v. American Press Co.Branzburg v. HayesMinneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. CommissionerBeauharnais v. IllinoisNew York Times Co. v. SullivanCurtis Publishing Co. v. ButtsGreenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n, Inc. v. BreslerGertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.Time, Inc. v. FirestoneBose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc.McDonald v. SmithHustler Magazine v. FalwellHarte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. ConnaughtonMilkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. CoxRed Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCCFCC v. Pacifica FoundationTurner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCCBartnicki v. VopperZacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.Harper & Row v. Nation EnterprisesJoint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrathWatkins v. United StatesNAACP v. AlabamaNAACP v. ButtonBaggett v. BullittIn re PrimusRoberts v. United States JayceesHurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of BostonBoy Scouts of America v. Dale
Intellectual property lawUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit casesUnited States Supreme Court casesUnited States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court2015 in United States case law
United States Supreme CourtLanham ActUnited States Patent and Trademark OfficeFirst AmendmentUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSimon TamtrademarkThe SlantsU.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeUrban Dictionaryen bancCircuit Judge MooreLanham ActunconstitutionalSimon TamRon ColemanUnited States Supreme CourtwritcertiorariSimon TamThe SlantscertiorariHate SpeechNeil GorsuchBluebooktalk page
| Matal v. Tam | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued January 18, 2017 Decided June 19, 2017 | |
| Full case name | Joseph Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Petitioner v. Simon Shiao Tam |
| Docket nos. | 15-1293 |
| Citations | 582 U.S. ___ (more) 137 S. Ct. 1744; 198 L. Ed. 2d 366; 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1757 |
| Prior history | In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 30 (2016). |
| Holding | |
| The Lanham Act's prohibition against registering disparaging trademarks with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Alito, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (parts I, II, III–A); Thomas (except part II); Roberts, Thomas, Breyer (parts III–B, III–C, IV) |
| Concurrence | Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| |
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017)[1] (previously known as Lee v. Tam), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed unanimously the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act's prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.
Contents
1 Background
2 Relevant Areas of Law
2.1 Lanham Act's Disparaging Provision
2.2 Viewpoint Discrimination
2.3 Content Discrimination
2.4 Strict Scrutiny
2.5 Central Hudson (Intermediate Scrutiny)
2.6 Government Speech
3 Federal Circuit decision
3.1 Viewpoint v. Content-Based Discrimination
3.2 Strict Scrutiny v. Intermediate Scrutiny (Central Hudson)
3.2.1 Federal Circuit's Analysis under Central Hudson
3.3 Government Subsidy
3.4 Government Speech
3.5 Concurrence by Judge O'Malley
3.6 Part Concurrence & Part Dissent by Judge Dyk
3.7 Dissent by Judge Lourie
3.8 Dissent by Judge Reyna
4 U.S. Supreme Court
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Background
Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C.,[2] the case was titled In Re Tam. This case was heard on appeal after Simon Tam applied for a trademark registration on the mark "The Slants" for his band from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and was denied.[2][3] The PTO interpreted the likely meaning of "The Slants" as a term to refer to people of Asian descent, despite claims from the band that the actual meaning referred to their perspective and that they were repurposing the term from an offensive slur.[4] The PTO used anecdotal sources like Urban Dictionary to support their claims, while ignoring survey data, linguistics experts, and legal declarations from Asian American community leaders.[5][6][7] The opinion was heard en banc by the Federal Circuit and the majority, which was written by Circuit Judge Moore, determined that the Disparaging Provision () of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional and found that Simon Tam was entitled to trademark registration.[2][8] Tam was represented by John C. Connell of Archer & Greiner and Ron Coleman and Joel MacMull, now of Mandelbaum Salsburg.
The United States government petitioned the United States Supreme Court for writ of certiorari, which was granted in September 2016. In addition to this case, there was another case before the Fourth Circuit, Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 112 F. Supp. 3d 439 (E.D. Va. 2015) to decide the same issue of whether or not the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional.[9][10] Despite an attempt by Pro Football to merge the two cases, the Supreme Court refused to grant the motion.
Section 2(a)'s ban on the federal registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" marks originated in the trademark legislation of the Lanham Act. A disparaging mark is a mark which "dishonors by comparison with what is inferior, slights, deprecates, degrades, or affects or injures by unjust comparison."[11]
Simon Tam is the founder and bassist for the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants. Tam named his band The Slants to "reclaim" and "take ownership" of Asian stereotypes. On March 5, 2010, Tam filed his first application to register THE SLANTS. After several appeals, the application was eventually abandoned. On November 14, 2011, Tam filed his second application (App. No. 85/472,044) seeking to register the mark THE SLANTS for "Entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band," based on his use of the mark since 2006. The examiner refused to register Tam's mark, finding it likely disparaging to "persons of Asian descent" under § 2(a). The examiner found that the mark likely referred to people of Asian descent in a disparaging way, explaining that the term "slants" had "a long history of being used to deride and mock a physical feature" of people of Asian descent. The examiner found that a substantial composite of persons of Asian descent might find the term offensive[12] precisely because it was being used by an Asian American band, saying: “Here, the evidence is uncontested that applicant is a founding member of a band that is self described as being composed of members of Asian descent...Thus, the association of the term SLANTS with those of Asian descent is evidenced by how the applicant uses the work - as the name of an all Asian-American band.”[13]
Due to this determination, Tam decided to appeal before the Federal Circuit.[12]
Relevant Areas of Law
Lanham Act's Disparaging Provision
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or 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; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501(9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.[14]
Viewpoint Discrimination
Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government is not only banning certain content or topics, but certain ideas.[15] The test for viewpoint discrimination is “[o]ther things being equal, viewpoint discrimination occurs when government allows one message while prohibiting the messages of those who can reasonably be expected to respond.”[16] Additionally, viewpoint discrimination involves intent to discourage one viewpoint and advance another.[17] The general concern being that the government will try to eradicate, not just content from the marketplace, but certain viewpoints—whether positive or negative.[18] If something rises to the level of viewpoint-based discrimination, it is deemed to be unconstitutional.[19]
Content Discrimination
In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the court said that, “Government regulation of speech is content based if a law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.”[20] The Court further determined that, “This commonsense meaning of the phrase ‘content based’ requires a court to consider whether a regulation of speech ‘on its face’ draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys.”[21] For that reason, content-based discrimination is presumptively invalid[22] and if something is found to be discriminating on the basis of content, it must survive strict scrutiny.[23]
Strict Scrutiny
According to Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Taylor: “[t]o satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must establish three elements: (1) "the interests the government proffers in support" of the statute must be "properly characterized as 'compelling'"; (2) the statute must "effectively advance [] those interests"; and (3) the statute must be "narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests asserted."[24]
Central Hudson (Intermediate Scrutiny)
For Central Hudson to apply, the court would have to determine that the statute at issue deals with commercial speech.[25] From Central Hudson, the Supreme Court developed a four-part test to determine whether a statute should pass muster.[12] The test looks to see: (1) Whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment—for it to fall here, it must concern lawful activity and not be misleading; (2) whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial; (3) whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted; and (4) whether the regulation is no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest—there must be a “reasonable fit” between the government's ends and the means of achieving those ends.[12]
Government Speech
In order for something to be classified as government speech, the court looks at four factors: (1) the central purpose of the program in which the speech in question occurs; (2) the degree of editorial control exercised by the government or private entities over the content of the speech; (3) the identity of the literal speaker; and (4) whether the government or the private entity bears the ultimate responsibility for the content of the speech.[26]
Federal Circuit decision
| Simon Tam v. United States Patent and Trademark Office | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit |
| Full case name | In re Tam |
| Argued | October 2, 2015 |
| Decided | December 22, 2015 |
| Citation(s) | 808 F.3d 1321 |
| Case history | |
| Prior action(s) | 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1305 (finding THE SLANTS trademark invalid as disparaging under § 2(a) of the Lanham Act) |
| Holding | |
| The disparaging provision of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional as it violates citizen's First Amendment rights. Vacated and Remanded. | |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | Moore, Prost, Newman, O'Malley, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll, Dyk, Lourie, Reyna |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Moore, joined by Prost, Newman, O'Malley, Wallach, Taranto, Chen, Hughes, Stoll |
| Concurrence | O'Malley, joined by Wallach |
| Concurrence | Dyk, joined by Lourie, Reyna |
| Dissent | Lourie |
| Dissent | Reyna |
| Laws applied | |
| |
The central issue before the Federal Circuit was to determine whether or not the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional and should therefore be voided.[2] Under the case name In Re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015), Circuit Judge Moore decided that the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional for various reasons and that Tam should be granted trademark protection on THE SLANTS.[2][27]
Viewpoint v. Content-Based Discrimination
The court determined that the Lanham Act was viewpoint-based discriminatory because whenever the government chooses to deny trademark protection to a mark, it is doing so because of the message the mark conveys.[2] The government tried to defend their position before the Federal Circuit by saying that they should be able to deny protection to the most "vile" racial epithets and images; however, the Federal Circuit said that "When the government discriminates against speech because it disapproves of the message conveyed by the speech, it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint."[28] The Federal Circuit bolstered their stance that it is viewpoint discriminatory because the PTO refused to register "The Slants"; however, the PTO has registered marks such as "Celebrasians" and "Asian Efficiency".[2] The Federal Circuit found the only difference between marks such as "The Slants" versus "Celebrasians" and "Asian Efficiency" is the messages conveyed. The Slants could be seen as being derogatory towards those of Asian descent versus positive. Since the court determined that the disparaging provision is viewpoint discriminatory, then it is immediately unconstitutional.[2]
In the alternative, the Federal Circuit determined that the disparaging provision is content-based discriminatory, in addition to viewpoint-discriminatory.[2] Additionally, the Federal Circuit came to the determination that even though trademarks inherently deal more with commercial speech versus expressive speech, that when the government cancels a mark under the disparaging provision, it is affecting more of the expressive aspects of speech and not the commerciality of it.[2] Therefore, the Federal Circuit found that if the disparaging provision is not found to be viewpoint discriminatory (in light of a higher court potentially overturning parts of this case) that it must be content-based discriminatory and must survive strict scrutiny unless an exception applied.[2][29]
Strict Scrutiny v. Intermediate Scrutiny (Central Hudson)
The government raised the argument that the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act should be reviewed under intermediate scrutiny by way of the Central Hudson test, because the inherent nature of trademarks are commercial.[2] However, the Federal Circuit determined that when the PTO chooses to cancel trademarks under the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act, it is usually because of their expressive components and not their commercial components.[2] The Federal Circuit went on to say that commercial speech mixed with expressive speech should be treated as expressive under deciding whether to apply strict or intermediate scrutiny.[2] Therefore, the Federal Circuit decided that strict scrutiny should be applied.[2][30]
Federal Circuit's Analysis under Central Hudson
In the Federal Circuit's effort to show the unconstitutionality of the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act, they chose to analyze the provision under the Central Hudson intermediate scrutiny.[2] The part of the Central Hudson test that the Federal Circuit failed the Lanham Act on was the "legitimate Interest" element (See above).
For this element, the government raised three arguments for why they had a legitimate interest:
- The Government argued that they have a legitimate interest to dissociate itself from speech it finds odious.
- The Government argued that it has a legitimate interest in "declining to expend its resources to facilitate the use of racial slurs as source identifiers in interstate commerce".
- The Government also argued that it has a legitimate interest in allowing States to make their own determinations about whether trademarks should be unenforceable on grounds of public policy.[2]
The Federal Circuit determined that none of the arguments raised by the government created a legitimate enough interest to pass the Central Hudson test. Since it does not pass the Central Hudson test, the Federal Circuit determined that it would also not pass strict scrutiny, since strict scrutiny requires a statute to rise to a higher standard.[2]
Government Subsidy
The Government raised the argument that the Lanham Act should be classified as a Government Subsidy and therefore exempt from the strict scrutiny requirement.[2] The Federal Circuit ultimately determined that no taxpayer dollars are used in registering trademarks, that it is completely user-funded in their application fees; therefore, the Federal Circuit determined that this does not fall under the government subsidy exception to strict scrutiny.[12]
Government Speech
The Government also raised the argument that the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act is government speech and should therefore fall outside of the purview of the first amendment.[2] The government argues this because of the ability to place the "®" or "TM" on the registered mark.[2] The government found this argument to be without merit.[2] The Federal Circuit said that the only message the government conveys when a mark is registered with the PTO is that "a mark is registered."[2] The court cited many reasons for their determination, but, most prominently, was a policy consideration.[2] The Court was concerned that if they allowed this argument to win the day, then it would also affect other areas of law, such as Copyright and Patent law.[2] The general concern being that the government could then control what they would and would not grant protections to and would therefore affect the types of speech expressed; this would have the effect of abridging free speech, which is a violation of the first amendment.[2]
Concurrence by Judge O'Malley
In addition to agreeing with Circuit Judge Moore's opinion, Judge O'Malley added that she believes the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional under the vagueness doctrine too.[2]
Part Concurrence & Part Dissent by Judge Dyk
Circuit Judge Dyk generally agrees with the opinion of the majority in that the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional; however, in his view, the majority err in going "beyond the facts of this case and holding the statute facially unconstitutional as applied to purely commercial speech."[2] Judge Dyk also believed that many trademarks lack expressive characteristics that would merit First Amendment protection and therefore the analysis should be under the Central Hudson test and not strict scrutiny.[2][30]
Dissent by Judge Lourie
Judge Lourie disagreed with the majority in many ways outlined below:
- Judge Lourie argued that the Lanham Act has dated back 70 years, it has been continuously applied during that time and it now being found to be unconstitutional seems bizarre.[2] Judge Lourie cites to stare decisis as the first reason why the majority made a mistake.[2][31]
- Additionally, Judge Lourie said that denial of an applicant's trademark does not deny their right to speak freely.[2] Contending that the mark holder may still generally use the mark as it wishes; without federal registration, "it simply lacks access to certain federal statutory enforcement mechanisms for excusing others from confusingly similar uses of the mark."[2]
- Judge Lourie also said that there are other ways for the mark holder to have protections, including common law rights.[12][32]
- Finally, Judge Lourie also determined that trademarks are exclusively commercial speech and should therefore not be analyzed under strict scrutiny.[2]
Dissent by Judge Reyna
Judge Reyna disagreed with the majority in the sense that trademark are exclusively commercial speech and should therefore be analyzed under the Central Hudson test and intermediate scrutiny.[2] From here, Judge Reyna determined that the government does have a legitimate interest in promoting the orderly flow of commerce and therefore, should pass intermediate scrutiny.[2] Judge Reyna stated that when you balance the legitimate interest of the disparaging provision versus how narrowly tailored the statute is, that it makes sense that the Lanham Act should survive scrutiny.[2]
U.S. Supreme Court
 Audio from Oyez (click "Oral Argument - January 18, 2017" at left) |
The United States Patent and Trademark Office appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court, presenting the following question in its petition for certiorari: "whether the disparagement provision in 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment"?[33] The Supreme Court agreed to grant certiorari in September 2016.[34] Oral arguments were heard on January 18, 2017.[34]
On June 19, 2017 the Supreme Court delivered judgment in favor of Tam, voting unanimously to affirm the lower court.[35][36] The majority opinion stated "The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. Contrary to the Government’s contention, trademarks are private, not government speech."[1]
This decision is another ruling that strikes down 'Hate Speech' laws that violate the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Justice Samuel Alito writes in this unanimous decision:
Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[1]
Justice Neil Gorsuch was not yet a member of the court during the oral argument, so he did not participate in the decision.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 582
References
 | Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) |
The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.
^ abc Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017).
^ abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzaaabacadaeafagahaiajak In re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
^ The Supreme Court, 2016 Term — Leading Cases, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 243 (2017).
^ "Opinion | The Slants on the Power of Repurposing a Slur". The New York Times. 2017-06-23. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-04-09..mw-parser-output cite.citationfont-style:inherit.mw-parser-output .citation qquotes:"""""""'""'".mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-free abackground:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/65/Lock-green.svg/9px-Lock-green.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-limited a,.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-registration abackground:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Lock-gray-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-gray-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center.mw-parser-output .citation .cs1-lock-subscription abackground:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/aa/Lock-red-alt-2.svg/9px-Lock-red-alt-2.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registrationcolor:#555.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription span,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration spanborder-bottom:1px dotted;cursor:help.mw-parser-output .cs1-ws-icon abackground:url("//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg/12px-Wikisource-logo.svg.png")no-repeat;background-position:right .1em center.mw-parser-output code.cs1-codecolor:inherit;background:inherit;border:inherit;padding:inherit.mw-parser-output .cs1-hidden-errordisplay:none;font-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-visible-errorfont-size:100%.mw-parser-output .cs1-maintdisplay:none;color:#33aa33;margin-left:0.3em.mw-parser-output .cs1-subscription,.mw-parser-output .cs1-registration,.mw-parser-output .cs1-formatfont-size:95%.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-left,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-leftpadding-left:0.2em.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-right,.mw-parser-output .cs1-kern-wl-rightpadding-right:0.2em
^ Jeong, Sarah (2017). "Should We Be Able to Reclaim a Racist Insult — as a Registered Trademark?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2018-04-09.
^ "Asian-American Band Fights To Trademark Name 'The Slants'". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-04-09.
^ "Asian-American Group The Slants Head to Supreme Court Over Band Name". Rolling Stone. Retrieved 2018-04-09.
^ Recent Case: Federal Circuit Holds the Lanham Act's Antidisparagement Provision Unconstitutional, 129 Harv. L. Rev. 2265 (2016).
^ DISPARAGING TRADEMARKS: The case of “in re Tam” and its current impact, Potente: A Professional Law Corporation, http://potentelaw.com/disparaging-trademarks-case-re-tam-current-impact/
^ Government Can't Deny Trademarks Over Offensive Names, Appeals Court Rules, NPR, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/12/22/460692655/government-cant-deny-trademarks-over-offensive-names-appeals-court-rules
^ In re Geller, 751 F.3d 1355, 1358 (2014)(alterations omitted).
^ abcdef Id.
^ "In re Simon Shiao Tam - Ex Parte Appeal Brief of Simon Tam of the PTO's Refusal to Register THE SLANTS Trademark | JD Supra". JD Supra. Retrieved 2018-04-09.
^
^ Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N. Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105, 116 (1991)
^ Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 894 (1995).
^ United States v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720, 736 (1990) (citing Monterey County Democratic Cent. Comm. v. United States Postal Serv., 812 F.2d 1194, 1198-1199 (9th Cir. 1987)).
^ In re Tam, 808 F.3d at 1334-35.
^ Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Comm'r of the Va. Dept. of Motor Vehicles, 288 F.3d 610, 623 (4th Cir. 2002).
^ Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2227 (2015).
^ Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2227 (citing Sorrell, 131 S. Ct. 2653, 2663, 180 L. Ed. 2d
544-55).
^ Id.
^ See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, 555 U.S. 460, 469 (2009).
^ Nat’l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Taylor, 582 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Blount v. SEC, 61 F.3d 938, 943, 314 U.S. App. D.C. 52 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
^ See generally Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) (https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/447/557/).
^ Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 112 F. Supp. 3d 439, 460, (E.D. Va. 2015) (citing Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Vehicles, 288 F.3d at 618).
^ Asian-American band “The Slants” overturns USPTO rule on “disparaging” trademarks, ARS Technica, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/federal-circuit-judges-say-rule-against-disparaging-trademarks-is-unconstitutional/
^ In Re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Sorrell, 131 S.Ct. at 2664).
^ Federal appeals court decides ‘The Slants’ case: excluding ‘disparaging marks’ from trademark registration violates the First Amendment, Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/12/22/federal-appeals-court-decides-the-slants-case-excluding-disparaging-marks-from-trademark-registration-violates-the-first-amendment/
^ ab Philip G. Hampton, II, Scott Benfield, & Alexander B. Lutzky (January 5, 2016). "Federal Circuit Rules Disparagement Clause of §2(a) of the Lanham Act Unconstitutional". Haynes Boone, http://www.haynesboone.com/news-and-events/news/alerts/2016/01/05/federal-circuit-rules-disparagement-clause-of-2a-of-the-lanham-act-unconstitutional.
^ Eriq Gardner (December 22, 2015). "Rock Band Wins First Amendment Appeal Over 'Disparaging' Trademarks". Hollywood Reporter, http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/rock-band-wins-first-amendment-850689.
^ Brent Kendall (December 22, 2015). "Government Can’t Reject Trademarks for Being Offensive, Court Says". Wall Street Journal, https://www.wsj.com/articles/government-cant-reject-trademarks-for-being-disparaging-or-offensive-court-says-1450809668.
^ Lee v. Tam, No. 15-1293, Pet. for Certiorari at I.
^ ab Docket No. 15-1293, Supreme Court of the United States, https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/15-1293.htm (last accessed June 3, 2017).
^ Liptak, Adam (20 June 2017). "Justices Strike Down Law Banning Disparaging Trademarks". The New York Times. p. A14. Retrieved 5 December 2017.
^ Clay Calvert, Beyond Trademarks and Offense: Tam and the Justices’ Evolution on Free Speech, 2016–2017 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 105 (2017)
External links
Case coverage from SCOTUSblog
Disparagement, Contempt, and Disrepute, a podcast episode covering the case
2015 in United States case law, Intellectual property law, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases, United States Supreme Court cases, United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts CourtUncategorized
