Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupport
Contact Us
Search
Close

Can Trademarks Violate Free Speech?

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on July 13, 2017
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Suppose that you want to register a trademark that identifies a source of goods or services for your business.  What if the trademark may be scandalous or disparage a particular group of people?  Should you register your trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?  Can you obtain a registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?  The answer is YES!

Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052) states in part:

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute…

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In the recent case of Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), Tam sought registration for the mark THE SLANTS for his rock band.  The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied registration for the mark based on a two-part test by finding the likely meaning of the term “SLANTS” and that a substantial composite of persons find the term “SLANTS” offensive.  After being denied registration, Tam appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) and en banc the court found the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause.  The U.S. Government filed a petition for certiorari, which the U.S. Supreme Court granted.  The U.S. Supreme Court decided that the disparagement clause violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.  The U.S. Supreme Court found that trademarks are private speech and not government speech, that trademarks are not a form of government subsidized speech, and that the registration of trademarks is not a type of government program in which some content- and speaker-based restrictions are permitted.  Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the disparagement clause violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Since the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, does the immoral or scandalous clause of Section 2(a) also violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?  The Federal Circuit is currently addressing this issue in a case pending before them, In re Brunetti, No. 150-1109.  In this case, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused registration of the term “FUCT” for athletic apparel.  The applicant, Brunetti, filed an appeal with the Federal Circuit.  Both parties in this case have acknowledged that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Tam effectively invalidates Section 2(a)’s provision denying registration to marks considered to be scandalous or immoral.  Although the disparagement portions of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) no longer apply, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office continues to examine applications based on the existing TMEP related to immoral and scandalous matter.  In addition, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has suspended action on any pending applications related to scandalous or immoral marks as outlined in Examination Guide 01-16 until a decision in Brunetti is finally issued.

Since trademarks can no longer be denied registration based on the disparagement clause, you should file an application to register the trademark as soon as possible.  You should be able to have the trademark application examined and obtain a registration.  However, it is still possible that once the application is published for opposition, a group disparaged by the trademark may attempt to oppose the mark.  However, any opposition should be dismissed if the opposition is based on disparagement grounds.  If the opposition, is based on other grounds, then you will be forced to proceed through an opposition if settlement is not possible.  Ultimately, you should be able to obtain your registration.

However, what if your trademark is considered immoral or scandalous?  Should you still file an application for trademark registration?  Because of Tam, it is highly likely that the Federal Circuit will agree that the scandalous clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and issue a decision in Brunetti soon.  Although an application may be suspended from examination, once Brunetti is decided, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will then begin examining these suspended applications.  Since priority is based on filing, it is recommended that the trademark application be filed immediately to reserve a place in line for priority and examination.

Thus, trademarks can no longer violate Free Speech.  As such, you can obtain a registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office if your trademark is considered immoral, scandalous, or disparaging.  Although any application filed may be suspended from examination if the trademark is considered immoral or scandalous, you will have priority over a subsequent filer of the mark.  If the mark is considered disparaging, it should not be suspended and examined for registration.  However, someone may still oppose your trademark once it is published, but should not prevail if based on disparagement.  Therefore, it is recommended that you register your trademark immediately with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical,
…
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Read more about Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & HowardEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

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

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • 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