After a long legal struggle, Seattle band Thunderpussy is granted a U.S. trademark; The Seattle Times, April 5, 2020

Brendan Kiley, The Seattle Times; After a long legal struggle, Seattle band Thunderpussy is granted a U.S. trademark

"“There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all,” Justice Elena Kagan wrote in the court’s opinion. “It therefore violates the First Amendment.” She also noted a lack of consistency in how the USPTO interpreted the Lanham Act, approving some trademarks and rejecting others that used the same potentially offensive language.

Kerr, Thunderpussy’s attorney, had argued the same point in his appeal to the USPTO.

“I mentioned over 40 trademark applications that had been accepted that included the word ‘pussy,’ ” he said. “Human discretion enters into the process, which is one person forming an opinion based on an internet search — but the implications for the band are enormous.”

The wheels of bureaucracy turned and, on April 4, Kerr finally received a letter from the USPTO granting Thunderpussy registered trademark number 6,021,338."

Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument; C-SPAN, April 15, 2019

April 15, 2019, C-SPAN; 

"Iancu v. Brunetti Oral Argument

The Supreme Court heard oral argument for Iancu v. Brunetti, a case concerning trademark law and the ban of “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks. Erik Brunetti founded a streetwear brand called “FUCT” back in 1990. Since then, he’s attempted to trademark it but with no success. Under the Lanham Act, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office (USPTO) can refuse an application if it considers it to be “immoral” or “scandalous” and that’s exactly what happened here. The USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board also reviewed the application and they too agreed that the mark was “scandalous” and very similar to the word “fucked.” The board also cited that “FUCT” was used on products with sexual imagery and public interpretation of it was “an unmistakable aura of negative sexual connotations.” Mr. Brunetti’s legal team argued that this is in direct violation of his first amendment rights to free speech and private expression. Furthermore, they said speech should be protected under the First Amendment even if one is in disagreement with it. This case eventually came before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. They ruled in favor of Mr. Brunetti. The federal government then filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The justices will now decide whether the Lanham Act banning “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks is unconstitutional."

He wants to trademark a brand name that sounds like the F-word. The Supreme Court is listening.; The Washington Post, April 13, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; He wants to trademark a brand name that sounds like the F-word. The Supreme Court is listening.

"Brunetti is challenging a neighboring provision in the law, which prohibits the registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” trademarks. And his odds look good."

Free Speech at the Supreme Court; New York Times, June 19, 2017

Editorial Board, New York Times; Free Speech at the Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court reaffirmed core free-speech principles in two cases on Monday, both decided without dissent...

"The Patent and Trademark Office rejected the name under a provision in a 70-year-old federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that “disparage” any “persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the law violates a “bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” That’s the right call. The First Amendment bars the government from discriminating among speakers based on their viewpoints. In this case, the Trademark Office did that by blocking only registrations for trademarks it determined to have negative connotations. The free-speech clause doesn’t apply to the government’s own speech, but registered trademarks can’t be put in that category — otherwise the government would have to argue that it endorses each of the more than two million trademarks it has already registered.

The decision is likely to help the Washington Redskins, who lost their trademark protections in 2014 after years of complaints from Native American groups. At the time, this page supported the Trademark Office’s decision, and we still regard the Redskins name as offensive. Based on this case, however, we’ve since reconsidered our underlying position."

The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech; Washington Post, June 19, 2017

Editorial Board, Washington Post; The Supreme Court gives the country some necessary guidance on free speech

"THE UNITED STATES is engaged just now in a freewheeling debate about — freewheeling debate. Or, to put it more precisely, about how freewheeling debate should normally be. The struggle is being waged across various battlegrounds — college campuses, social media, New York theater, even the air-conditioned offices in which federal employees decide whether to protect trademarks, such as that of Washington’s National Football League franchise.

Now comes the Supreme Court with a strong statement in favor of free speech, to include speech that many find offensive. With the support of all eight justices who participated in the case (new Justice Neil M. Gorsuch being the exception), the court struck down a 71-year-old law requiring the Patent and Trademark Office to deny registration to brands that may “disparage” people or bring them “into contemp[t] or disrepute.” The ruling means that a dance-rock band may henceforth call itself “the Slants” on the same legal basis that, say, Mick Jagger’s bunch uses “the Rolling Stones” — even though many Asian Americans find the term derogatory and demeaning...

As the court’s decision reminds us, constitutional and decent are not the same thing."

The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name In Trademark Dispute; NPR, June 19, 2017

Bill Chappell, NPR; The Slants Win Supreme Court Battle Over Band's Name In Trademark Dispute

[Kip Currier: A big 8-0 U.S. Supreme Court decision for Asian American rock band The Slants today. I met The Slants at an April 27, 2017 event, hosted by Duquesne University's School of Law and Mary Pappert School of Music, discussing conflicting aspects of U.S. trademark law (specifically, the Lanham Act's provision addressing "disparaging trademarks") and the 1st Amendment and freedom of expression. Some photos I took at that event:]

"Members of the Asian-American rock band The Slants have the right to call themselves by a disparaging name, the Supreme Court says, in a ruling that could have broad impact on how the First Amendment is applied in other trademark cases."

U.S. Supreme Court justices fret over offensive trademarks; Reuters, 1/18/17

Andrew Chung, Reuters; 

U.S. Supreme Court justices fret over offensive trademarks

"The justices during the arguments seemed to agree with the band that the government was favoring some trademarks while disapproving others, a kind of discrimination based on viewpoint traditionally forbidden by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees free speech.

But the justices appeared to struggle over whether banning offensive slurs is reasonable in the trademark system, which is used to promote commerce.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the band's attorney, John Connell, whether a group of non-Asians using the name The Slants to mock Asians could be denied a trademark. Connell said they could not.

Kennedy questioned whether the trademark system should be considered like a public park "where you can say anything you want.

In rejecting The Slants' trademark, government officials relied on a provision of the 1946 Lanham Act that prevents the registration of marks that may disparage certain people."

Warning: This article on trademarks may include language deemed ‘scandalous, immoral or disparaging’; Washington Post, 9/30/16

Fred Barbash, Washington Post; Warning: This article on trademarks may include language deemed ‘scandalous, immoral or disparaging’ :

"It is a law called the Lanham Act that gives the federal government the power to refuse to register or to cancel trademarks deemed scandalous, immoral or disparaging — let’s call it SIOD for short.

On the basis of that law, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, for example, determined that Redskins, as in Washington Redskins, was SIOD and canceled its trademark...

The primary purpose of the 1905 Trade Mark Act, later reenacted as the Lanham Act in 1946, is twofold, as Carpenter and Murphy wrote in their law review article, “including lessening of consumer search costs and encouraging producers of goods and services ‘to invest in quality by ensuring that they, and not their competitors, reap the reputation-related rewards of that investment,’ thereby protecting consumers from deceptive practices.”...

What is SIOD?

“It is always going to be just a matter of the personal opinion of the individual parties as to whether they think it is disparaging,” said the PTO’s assistant commissioner in 1939, as he explained his own discomfort."

Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Affect Redskins Trademark; NPR, 9/29/16

Eyder Peralta, NPR; Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Affect Redskins Trademark:

"The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that might decide whether the government can deny Washington's NFL team a trademark because it has deemed the team name is offensive.

The court granted certiorari on Lee V. Tam. If you remember, The Slants, an Asian-American rock band, sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because it refused to trademark their name saying it proved offensive.

In December of last year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that the band's name was private speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment."

Government Can't Deny Trademarks Over Offensive Names, Appeals Court Rules; NPR, 12/23/15

Eyder Peralta, NPR; Government Can't Deny Trademarks Over Offensive Names, Appeals Court Rules:

"The court ruled that their name — The Slants — is private speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment. The government, the court writes, has no business trying to regulate it by denying the band a trademark.

At issue in the case was Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which allows the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to deny or cancel a trademark if it is "disparaging" of persons, institutions or national symbols.

In a 10-2 decision, the court decided parts of that section were unconstitutional. Conferring a trademark, the court argues, does not make the band's name government speech.

Here's the comparison the majority uses: "The PTO's processing of trademark registrations no more transforms private speech into government speech than when the government issues permits for street parades, copyright registration certificates, or, for that matter, grants medical, hunting, fishing, or drivers licenses, or records property titles, birth certificates, or articles of incorporation.""