Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. (2017)

“The First Amendment forbids the government from banning trademarks it deems offensive.”

Short Description

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Lanham Act’s “disparagement clause,” ruling that it violated the First Amendment. This case affirmed that trademarks are private speech, and the government cannot refuse registration simply because a mark is considered disparaging or offensive.

Facts

⦁ Simon Tam, lead singer of the Asian-American rock band “The Slants,” applied to register the band’s name as a trademark.

⦁ The USPTO denied registration, citing the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, which barred registration of marks that may “disparage” or “bring into contempt or disrepute” any groups.

⦁ Tam argued that reclaiming the term “Slants” was a form of empowerment and free expression.

⦁ Lower courts were divided, and the case went to the Supreme Court.

Findings / Reasoning

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

⦁ Viewpoint Discrimination: The disparagement clause engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, because the government was rejecting marks based on disapproval of the ideas they expressed.

⦁ First Amendment Protection: Free speech principles apply even when speech is offensive — the government cannot silence speech simply because it offends.

Suggestions / Implications

⦁ The USPTO cannot deny trademarks on the grounds of offensiveness.

⦁ This case ensures stronger free speech protection in the trademark context.

⦁ Opened the door for controversial marks (e.g., Washington Redskins case).

Judgment & Date

⦁ Judgment: The disparagement clause of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional. Simon Tam’s trademark application must be accepted.

⦁ Date : June 19, 2017.