Tuesday, 17 July 2018
Latest news
Main » Supreme Court says government can't refuse disparaging trademarks

Supreme Court says government can't refuse disparaging trademarks

20 June 2017

In recent years, such trademarked names have come under attack as racially offensive. New Justice Neil Gorsuch didn't take part in the case because it was argued before he joined the court.

The outcome of The Slants' case will shape the resolution of the Washington Redskins' battle with the PTO.

Today's ruling will affect a trademark that has far more commercial value than The Slants-that of the National Football League team Washington Redskins. The franchise's attorney, Robert Raskopf, was present at the Supreme Court during oral arguments in January.

The case was closely watched for the impact it would have on a separate dispute involving the Redskins, who are owned by Dan Snyder.

Powerball ticket worth $447.8 million is sold in Riverside County
This big score will come in handy for Alberee's family, after his was diagnosed with pulmonary fibrosis earlier this year. The lucky punter matched all six numbers on their Powerball ticket which was sold in southern California.

Some American Indian groups, however, saw a difference between The Slants and the Redskins. In contrast, only 28 percent of all of Americans agree with that statement.

But an overwhelming majority of American Indians do not consider "Redskins" a derogatory term. As such, the Redskins should be allowed to regain their trademark registration for their slur of a name. Additionally, Alito said that refusing a trademark based on someone taking offense cuts directly against the First Amendment.

But no matter how the point is phrased, its unmistakable thrust is this: The Government has an interest in preventing speech expressing ideas that offend.

"It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle", writes Alito in the opinion.

London Van Attack: Brave Imam 'Stopped All Forms' of Assault on Suspect
In a statement Mr Osborne's nephew Ellis, 26, said "we are massively shocked; it's unbelievable, it still hasn't really sunk in". Police confirmed one person has been arrested, with United Kingdom media reporting he was the driver of the van.

The court, he wrote, is cautious in extending its government-speech precedents, "for if private speech could be passed off as government speech by simply affixing a government seal of approval, government could silence or muffle the expression of disfavored viewpoints".

Registration of a trademark provides a nationwide defense against others who would try to use it. He says he picked his band's moniker in an effort to reclaim a stereotype. "In today's day and age, that's a fairly significant opinion that there's agreement on this".

Members of the Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American rock band The Slants (L-R) Tyler Chen, Ken Shima, Simon Tam, Joe X. Jiang pose in Portland, Oregon, U.S., August 21, 2015 in a picture released by band representatives. According to an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, "The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause". "The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's 2014 decision cancelling six Redskins trademark registrations on the basis that they are disparaging will not be able to be upheld, and the registrations should be reinstated in due course".

"So there might be some grounds of distinction there", said Mr. Blackman.

The American Electric Power Company (AEP) Earns News Sentiment Rating of 0.22
Berkshire Asset Management Llc decreased Wci Communities (NYSE:WCIC) stake by 40,000 shares to 54,372 valued at $1.28M in 2016Q4. Bank of Montreal Can increased its position in shares of American Electric Power Company by 47.4% in the first quarter.

The court's ruling begins by briefly reviewing the history of trademark law. The television show "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" was registered by the trademark office, but "Clearly Queer" was rejected. And now. the Supreme Court has agreed with that view and has struck down 15 USC 1052 (a) as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, which makes this a big win for the First Amendment. She argued that the ruling leaves ambiguity on those counts, and she said Congress could step in and legislate to stop their registration. But actually getting that trademark has always been much more complicated.

Supreme Court says government can't refuse disparaging trademarks