Financial Poise
Share this...
trademark act

And Down Goes Another Lanham Act Clause… The Trademark Act v. Good Taste?

The Federal Circuit just ruled that the “scandalous” clause of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional in view of the Supreme Court decision in Matal v. Tam. The Lanham Act is also known as the Trademark Act.

Recapping The Slants’ Fight for Trademarkability in Matal v. Tam

As a refresher, Matal v. Tam involved the Asian-American rock band The Slants. The Slants filed a trademark application to register their band name with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The office rejected the band’s application.

Click here to read the whole story on Matal v. Tam.

Relying on the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, the USPTO found the name “The Slants” was offensive toward Asian-Americans. The Supreme Court eventually heard the case and ruled in favor of the Slants, determining that the disparagement clause “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

In re: Brunetti: Protecting Private Expression and Ruling Against the USPTO

In December 2017, the Federal Circuit determined in In re: Brunetti that the “scandalous” clause of the Lanham Trademark Act that bars trademarks that are either scandalous or immoral is unconstitutional as well. The Trademark Act governs trademarkability and false advertising.

First Amendment “protects private expression, even private expression which is offensive to a substantial composite of the general public.”

The applicant, Erik Brunetti, sought to register the mark “fuct” for apparel. The USPTO denied registration, citing the scandalous nature of the mark. On appeal, the Federal Circuit noted that “[t]he trademark at issue is vulgar.”

You may also be interested in “How Three Early Supreme Court Decisions Shaped the U.S. Economy

Despite the vulgarity of the mark, the First Amendment “protects private expression, even private expression which is offensive to a substantial composite of the general public.” The Court also noted that the USPTO failed to offer a substantial government interest for policing offensive speech.

This decision marks the latest seismic shift in trademarkability, but one that many experts saw coming after the Matal decision.

Expanding Possibilities for Nontraditional Brands

The Brunetti and Matal decisions open the door for registration of a lot of trademarks that were previously deemed unregisterable under the Lanham Trademark Act. These decisions suggest that there is no such thing as a disparaging or scandalous mark and that the USPTO will no longer be the arbiter of good taste. Effectively, nothing is off-limits when it comes to nontraditional brand identifiers.

These decisions suggest that there is no such thing as a disparaging or scandalous mark and that the USPTO will no longer be the arbiter of good taste.

However, just because a mark can be registered doesn’t mean that it should. Businesses should look to their customer base and the marketplace when determining whether an edgy mark that was once considered disparaging or scandalous is a wise business decision. What’s true for The Slants and fuct might not be true for every business.

Like what you just read?

Then sign up to receive our weekly take on the most relevant and topical business, financial and legal issues affecting investors and small business owners. Always Plain English. Always Objective. Always FREE.

About Meghan Nugent

Meghan Nugent is an associate with SpencePC. She has extensive experience assisting clients in both transactional and litigation matters of all natures. The focus of her practice is Intellectual Property. She also assists the firm’s clients in the prosecution and litigation of trademarks.

View all articles by Meghan »

Share
Hide
>