Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. ___ (2019)

“The government cannot refuse to register trademarks just because they are immoral or scandalous.”

Short Description

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” bar on trademark registration, ruling that it violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The decision expanded free expression protection in the trademark system, following the logic of Matal v. Tam (2017).

Facts

⦁ Erik Brunetti, founder of a streetwear clothing brand called FUCT (pronounced like “eff-you-see-tee”), applied to register the brand name as a trademark.

⦁ The USPTO refused registration under the Lanham Act’s “immoral or scandalous” prohibition.

⦁ Brunetti challenged the refusal, arguing that the restriction was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

⦁ The case reached the Supreme Court after the Federal Circuit struck down the provision.

Findings / Reasoning

⦁ Trademarks = Private Speech: The Court reaffirmed that trademarks are private, not government speech.

⦁ Viewpoint Discrimination: The immoral/scandalous clause discriminated against expressive viewpoints, because it allowed “acceptable” moral speech but banned offensive/immoral ones.

⦁ Free Speech Principle: Speech cannot be banned simply because society finds it offensive.

Suggestions / Implications

⦁ USPTO must allow registration of marks even if they are vulgar, offensive, or shocking.

⦁ This case ensures broad First Amendment protection in the trademark system.

⦁ Opened doors for controversial marks that push cultural boundaries.

Judgment & Date

⦁ Judgment: The Supreme Court struck down the “immoral or scandalous” clause as unconstitutional. Brunetti’s mark FUCT is eligible for registration.

⦁ Date: June 24, 2019.