Justices Will Probe Trademarks’ Nature in ‘Trump Too Small’ Case; Bloomberg Law, October 30, 2023

 Kyle Jahner, Bloomberg Law; Justices Will Probe Trademarks’ Nature in ‘Trump Too Small’ Case

"The fight over ‘Trump Too Small’ is the latest in a series of cases the court has faced in recent years raising First Amendment questions over trademark registrations. Although the justices skipped deciding the broader constitutional questions when they struck down different statutory registration bans in 2017 and 2019, this time the nature of the government’s argument may force the justices to now draw a line in the sand, he said."

‘Trump Too Small’ Fight Splits First Amendment Trademark Views; Bloomberg Law, September 22, 2023

Kyle Jahner, Bloomberg Law; ‘Trump Too Small’ Fight Splits First Amendment Trademark Views

"A dispute over a “Trump Too Small” trademark application hinges on whether a statutory ban offends the First Amendment, as the US Supreme Court recently found two other restrictions did."

Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court; The New York Times, January 21, 2019

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Trademark Fight Over Vulgar Term’s ‘Phonetic Twin’ Heads to Supreme Court

"The Supreme Court apparently thinks the question is more complicated, as it agreed this month to hear the government’s appeal. If nothing else, the court can use Mr. Brunetti’s case to sort out just what it meant to say in the 2017 decision, which ruled for an Asian-American dance-rock band called the Slants. (The decision also effectively allowed the Washington Redskins football team to register its trademarks.)

The justices were unanimous in ruling that the prohibition on disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment. But they managed to split 4 to 4 in most of their reasoning, making it hard to analyze how the decision applies in the context of the ban on scandalous terms."

Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands; The Washington Post, January 4, 2019

Robert Barnes, The Washington Post; Supreme Court to decide if trademark protection can be denied to ‘scandalous’ brands

"The Supreme Court agreed Friday to review a new front in the battle over free speech and will decide whether trademark protection can be refused to brands the federal government finds vulgar or lewd.

The case involves a decision of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to deny trademark registration to a clothing line called FUCT.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit struck down the century-old ban on protecting “scandalous” and “immoral” trademarks as a First Amendment violation, and the Department of Justice wants the Supreme Court to reverse the decision...

The case,Iancu v. Brunetti , will probably be heard at the Supreme Court in April."

Appeals court vacates decisions that canceled Redskins trademark registrations; USA Today, January 18, 2018

Erik Brady, USA Today; Appeals court vacates decisions that canceled Redskins trademark registrations

"The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Thursday vacated decisions that had canceled the Washington NFL team’s federal trademark registrations, officially ending a legal fight that lasted more than 25 years.

Legally speaking, the team won. Culturally speaking, Native American petitioners believe they did."

‘We can change the meaning’: Trademarks filed for n-word after Supreme Court decision; Washington Post, August 1, 2017

Justin Wm. Moyer, Washington Post; ‘We can change the meaning’: Trademarks filed for n-word after Supreme Court decision

"Gene Quinn, founder of the intellectual property blog IP Watchdog, said trademarking epithets to limit their use was a “laudable purpose,” but difficult to achieve.

To be maintained, trademarks must be used in interstate commerce, he said, and are awarded in different classes, such as clothing, food or video games. Anyone trying to erase these words from the marketplace would simultaneously need to put them into the marketplace."

Mississippi man files trademark for slang version of N-word; Clarion-Ledger, July 27, 2017

Sarah Fowler, Clarion-Ledger; Mississippi man files trademark for slang version of N-word

"Curtis Bordenave, who is black, filed an application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for commercial use of n---a.

Bordenave's application comes on the heels of a June decision by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down a federal law that prohibited trademarks of disparaging words and symbols. 

"We plan on dictating the future of how we define this word," Bordenave said. "A young, black businessman from Mississippi has acquired the rights to the word. I think that’s a great ending to that story.""

After Supreme Court Decision, People Race To Trademark Racially Offensive Words; NPR, July 21, 2017

Ailsa Chang, NPR; After Supreme Court Decision, People Race To Trademark Racially Offensive Words

"CHANG: I wondered about the intent, too, so I set off to find this other guy. And he turned out to be a patent lawyer in Alexandria, Va., Steve Maynard.

Why swastikas?

STEVE MAYNARD: Because the term has an incendiary meaning behind it.

CHANG: Yeah.

MAYNARD: And it's currently used as a symbol of hate. And if we can own the brand, we will be able to control the sale of the brand and the use of the brand as well.

CHANG: Oh, so you're trying to basically grab the swastika so real, actual racists and haters can't grab the swastika as a...

MAYNARD: Correct.

CHANG: ...Registered trademark.

MAYNARD: Correct.

CHANG: But there's a catch. Maynard can't just get the trademark, put it in a drawer and make sure nobody else uses it. To keep a trademark, he actually needs to sell a swastika product. So he will - blankets, shirts, flags. But he plans to make these products so expensive he's hoping no one will ever buy them."

Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.; Washington Post, June 21, 2017

Robert S. Chang, Washington Post; Derogatory trademarks aren’t about free speech. They’re about discrimination.

"Unfortunately, Reyna’s hypothetical is an actuality of sorts. In Florida and other states, gun store owners have placed signs on their establishments declaring themselves to be a “Muslim Free Zone.” As the owner of one of the stores, Florida Gun Supply, said: “My goal is to make sure they don’t feel welcome here so I don’t have the need to discriminate in the first place.

Following Matal v. Tam, nothing will prevent the owner from obtaining federal registration of “Muslim Free Zone” as a trademark, accomplishing through speech what he might not be able to do through direct denial of service. For businesses not covered by Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nothing will prevent the creation and federal registration of trademarks such as “No Gays Allowed” or, for that matter, “Whites Only.”

The federal government, though, should not be required to register these trademarks. The government should not be required to participate in discrimination.

This is where we are following the Supreme Court decision. This is the mischief that will come."