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."

SCOTUS To Hear From Band The Slants For Right To Trademark Name; Here & Now, WBUR, 1/17/17

Here & Now, WBUR; 

SCOTUS To Hear From Band The Slants For Right To Trademark Name

"The Asian-American band The Slants will appear before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to argue for full trademark rights to their name, which is a pejorative.

The Portland band has won its case in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in which the court ruled that the Patent and Trademark Office and the Department of Justice is infringing on the group's rights to freedom of speech.

Here & Now's Robin Young speaks with Rebecca Tushnet (@rtushnet), professor of law at Georgetown Law School, about the conflict for rights to the name."

Washington Redskins: Recent Developments In The Team’s Trademark Case; Fansided via FoxSports.com, 12/30/16

Desmond Lee/FanSided via Riggo's Rag Fansided via FoxSports.com; 

Washington Redskins: Recent Developments In The Team’s Trademark Case:

"The once high-profile Washington Redskins trademark case has, for the time being, taken a back seat to another matter being heard in the United States Supreme Court. What will happen next and when will the Redskins matter get back on track?

For those of you waiting for a decision in the Redskins trademark case, you’ll need to wait somewhat longer. Last month, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to stay the team’s case pending the United States Supreme Court’s (“SCOTUS”) resolution of a matter brought by an Asian rock band."

EFF to Supreme Court: Trademarks are Not Government Speech; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 12/16/16

Daniel Nazer, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); EFF to Supreme Court: Trademarks are Not Government Speech:

"Today, together with the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Freedom of Expression, EFF submitted an amicus brief in Lee v. Tam. Our brief discusses an unusual but important question: are registered trademarks government expression? It is important to get the dividing line between government and private speech correct. This is because, while the government doesn’t get to control what you say, it does get to control what it says. As we argue in our brief, categorizing registered trademarks as government expression would threaten speech in many other areas.

The case involves a rock band from California called The Slants."

United States: Lee v. Tam: Disparaging Trademarks At The Supreme Court; Mondaq, 11/24/16

Mark Hannemann, Thomas R. Makin, Matthew G. Berkowitz, Patrick Colsher, Joseph Purcell and Eric Lucas, Mondaq; United States: Lee v. Tam: Disparaging Trademarks At The Supreme Court:

"On April 20, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "PTO") petitioned for a writ of certiorari on the following question:

Whether the disparagement provision in 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it "[c]onsists of... matter which may disparage... persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute," is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment."

U.S. top court refuses to hear Redskins trademark appeal; Reuters, 10/3/16

Lawrence Hurley, Reuters; U.S. top court refuses to hear Redskins trademark appeal:

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear an appeal by the Washington Redskins challenging a federal agency's decision to cancel the National Football League team's trademarks after finding the name disparaging to Native Americans.

While the justices refused to hear the team's appeal, the issues it raises are part of another case that the court last week agreed to hear involving the Oregon-based Asian-American rock band The Slants whose bid for trademark protection of its name was denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Both the band and the team have argued that a 1946 federal law barring trademarks on racial slurs violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

The Supreme Court opted not to hear the Redskins' appeal of a federal judge's ruling in July 2015 that upheld the Patent and Trademark Office's 2014 decision to cancel six trademarks held by the team and provided another victory for Native American activists pressing the franchise to change its name."

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."

Reuters via New York Times; Divided U.S. Supreme Court Turns to Less Sensitive IP Cases, 9/21/16

Reuters via New York Times; Divided U.S. Supreme Court Turns to Less Sensitive IP Cases:

"Shorthanded and ideologically divided, the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to take up any cases on politically sensitive social issues in its new term starting in October, instead showing a keen interest in more technical cases of importance to business such as disputes over intellectual property.

In addition to four intellectual property cases it has already agreed to hear, the court could as soon as next week take up a trademark battle that pits an Asian-American rock band and the Washington Redskins football team against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Later in the year, the court could take up a quirky copyright fight between a woman and a record company over a video she posted online of her toddler son dancing to a Prince song...

It is not unusual for the court to take up a handful of intellectual property (IP) cases among the 70 or so it selects for oral argument but this year there is a greater incentive than ever because they are often decided by unanimous or lopsided votes.

(Graphic on the Supreme Court's handling of intellectual property cases: http://tmsnrt.rs/2cZmi4S)"

Redskins, rock band battle government in trademark fight; Washington Post, 9/19/16

Sam Hananel, Washington Post; Redskins, rock band battle government in trademark fight:

"Simon Tam has openly criticized the Washington Redskins team name as a racist slur that demeans Native Americans.

But Tam and his Asian-American rock band, The Slants, find themselves on the same side as the NFL franchise in a First Amendment legal battle over trademark protection for names that some consider offensive. The Supreme Court could decide as early as this month whether to hear the dispute involving the Portland, Oregon-area band. And if the football team has its way, the justices could hear both cases in its new term. At issue is a constitutional challenge to a law barring the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office from registering trademarks that disparage minority groups. The office denied a trademark to the Slants in 2011 after finding the name disparaged people of Asian descent.

Redskins, and Other Troubling Trademarks; New York Times, 5/4/16

Room for Debate, New York Times; Redskins, and Other Troubling Trademarks:

"The Supreme Court may soon take up two cases in which the government does not want to register trademarks it considers disparaging — for the Washington Redskins football team and an Asian-American band called The Slants. The major federal law on trademarks lets the government deny registration to trademarks that are “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous” or that “disparage.”

Is it a denial of free speech for the government to prohibit registration for such trademarks?"

USPTO appeals to Supreme Court for ruling on racially tinged trademarks; Ars Technica, 4/22/16

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; USPTO appeals to Supreme Court for ruling on racially tinged trademarks:

"In December, a court case brought by Portland-based Asian American rock band "The Slants" led to what could be a major change in US trademark law. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled the US Patent and Trademark Office, which had refused to give the band a trademark, citing a law barring "disparaging" marks.

The battle isn't quite over, though. Patent Office lawyers have appealed to the Supreme Court, asking them to consider the case. If the Supreme Court takes up the case and reverses the Federal Circuit—something the high court has not hesitated to do in recent patent cases—the USPTO will retain its ability to quash disparaging trademarks.

Either way, the results of the case will have repercussions for other owners of controversial trademarks—most notably, the Washington Redskins. The football team was stripped of its trademark rights after years of litigation but is continuing its fight at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit."

Ruling Could Help Washington Redskins in Trademark Case; New York Times, 12/22/15

Richard Sandomir, New York Times; Ruling Could Help Washington Redskins in Trademark Case:

"The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington made the ruling in a case involving an Asian-American dance-rock band that sought to register a trademark for its provocative name, the Slants. The court said the First Amendment “forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others.”

Writing for the majority, Kimberly A. Moore, a judge on the appeals court, said: “It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys.”...

Still, Tuesday’s ruling was considered a major one in trademark law — the striking down of a provision of the nearly 70-year-old Lanham Act that deals with disparaging or offensive trademarks.

“The majority opinion is a very broad rejection of the proposition that the federal government can refuse registration or use of a trademark based on whether certain groups find the mark to be disparaging,” said Jeremy Sheff, a law professor at St. John’s University School of Law who specializes in intellectual property. “It was exactly on that basis that the Redskins’ marks were canceled.”

Whatever happens in the appeals court to the Redskins’ registered trademarks, the team’s use of its name is not in jeopardy. Although it symbolizes racism and intolerance to some, and has inspired groups to demand that it be replaced, the Redskins’ owner, Daniel Snyder, has vowed never to drop it. He has fought a public battle to prove the name does not offend all Native Americans. And he has the backing of the N.F.L., which has been paying the costs of defending the trademarks."