Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Supreme Court Grants Cert. in USPTO Appeal of Slants Decision: Whether The Ban On Offensive Trademarks Violates The First Amendment

By Ira S. Sacks & Rachel B. Rudensky on September 30, 2016
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Supreme Court granted the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s petition for certiorari in In re Tam, 117 USPQ2d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2016), discussed here and here. In that case, the USPTO denied registration of an application to register the trademark THE SLANTS for a rock/dance on the grounds that it was offensive to Asians or Asian-Americans.

The main issue on review is § 2(a) of the Lanham (Trademark) Act, which bars registration of trademarks that “disparage” people, groups, or institutions. While the USPTO denied registration of THE SLANTS, the Federal Circuit, en banc, reversed, finding § 2(a) to be an unconstitutional abridgement of First Amendment rights: the government “cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks.”

Although the question of the constitutionality of § 2(a) came to the U.S. Supreme Court in connection with the USPTO’s denial of registration of THE SLANTS, the issue has been more famously and hotly contested by the Washington Redskins. As discussed previously on this blog here, Native American activists have turned to the civil courts to petition to cancel Pro-Football, Inc.’s REDSKINS trademark registrations pursuant to § 2(a). Pro-Football has also petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari to join in In re Tam, seeking to skip over the Fourth Circuit and presenting additional important constitutional objections to § 2(a) that are intertwined with THE SLANTS solitary First Amendment question. There has been no action on that petition as yet.

More to come!

Photo of Ira S. Sacks Ira S. Sacks

Ira Sacks practices in the area of litigation with an emphasis on trademark and branding matters. He handles complex and high-profile cases involving trademark, copyright, and patent infringement issues, distribution disputes, false advertising, price fixing, dealer termination, monopolization and unfair competition, unfair trade…

Ira Sacks practices in the area of litigation with an emphasis on trademark and branding matters. He handles complex and high-profile cases involving trademark, copyright, and patent infringement issues, distribution disputes, false advertising, price fixing, dealer termination, monopolization and unfair competition, unfair trade practices, and trade secrets. Ira’s clients include fragrance and fashion companies as well as national scientific laboratories, real estate developers, and financial institutions.

Read more about Ira S. SacksEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Rachel B. Rudensky Rachel B. Rudensky

Rachel Rudensky assists her clients in all facets of brand development around the world. She represents clients in a wide variety of sectors including, fashion, entertainment, hospitality, professional sports, healthcare, financial services, and consumer goods. Her practice encompasses trademarks, copyrights, and internet disputes…

Rachel Rudensky assists her clients in all facets of brand development around the world. She represents clients in a wide variety of sectors including, fashion, entertainment, hospitality, professional sports, healthcare, financial services, and consumer goods. Her practice encompasses trademarks, copyrights, and internet disputes involving domain names.

Read more about Rachel B. RudenskyEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    Marks, Works, and Secrets
  • Organization:
    Akerman LLP

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo