SCOTUS strikes down ‘scandalous’ part of TM law


Associated Press

WASHINGTON

The Supreme Court struck down a section of federal law Monday that prevented businesses from registering trademarks seen as scandalous or immoral, handing a victory to California fashion brand FUCT.

The case is Iancu v. Brunetti, 18-302.

The high court ruled the century-old provision is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Between 2005 and 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ultimately refused about 150 trademark applications a year as a result of the provision. Those turned away could use the words they sought to register, but didn’t get the benefits that come with trademark registration. Going after counterfeiters was also difficult as a result.

The Trump administration had defended the provision, arguing it encouraged trademarks that are appropriate for all audiences.

The high court’s ruling means the people and companies behind applications that previously failed as a result of the provision can re-submit them for approval. And new trademark applications cannot be refused on the grounds they are scandalous or immoral.

Justice Elena Kagan said in reading her majority opinion the most fundamental principle of free speech law is that the government can’t penalize or discriminate against expression based on the ideas or viewpoints they convey. She said Lanham Act’s ban on “immoral or scandalous” trademarks does just that.

In an opinion for herself and five colleagues, both conservatives and liberals, Justice Kagan called the provision “substantially overbroad.”

“There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world [even more than there are swearwords], and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment,” she wrote.

Justice Kagan’s opinion suggested a narrower law covering lewd, sexually-explicit or profane trademarks might be acceptable.

The justices’ ruling was in some ways expected because of one the court made two years ago. In 2017, they unanimously invalidated a related provision of federal law that told officials not to register disparaging trademarks, finding that restriction violated the First Amendment. In that case, an Asian-American rock band sued after the government refused to register its band name, “The Slants,” because it was seen as offensive to Asians.

Monday’s ruling involves Los Angeles-based FUCT, which began selling clothing in 1991. Federal officials refused to register the brand’s name, calling it “highly offensive” and “vulgar.” Erik Brunetti, the artist behind the brand, and his attorney didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

The court’s decision could result in an uptick in requests to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register trademarks that previously would have been considered scandalous or immoral.

The patent office is reviewing the decision, said spokesman Paul Fucito.

Subscribe Today

Sign up for our email newsletter to receive daily news.

Want more? Click here to subscribe to either the Print or Digital Editions.