The United States Supreme Court heard arguments this Wednesday in a case involving a federal trademark application filed by the Oregon band “The Slants.”
As discussed in an earlier post, The Slants’ application for a trademark registration for the name of their band was denied by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) because it determined that the term “slants” is disparaging to Asian people. The Slants appealed and the Federal Circuit reversed, finding the non-disparagement portion of the federal statute unconstitutional. The PTO appealed to the Supreme Court.
During the oral argument, several justices appeared to question the law’s constitutionality. Justice Breyer challenged the PTO’s assertion that a valid objective of the law was to prevent distractions, Justice Kagan raised questions of viewpoint discrimination, and Justice Ginsburg raised the issue of vagueness. Some quotes from Justices Breyer and Kagan are provided below:
JUSTICE BREYER: The only question I have for you is what purpose related to trademarks objective does this serve? And I want to be sure I have your answer. Your answer so far was, it prevents the — or it helps to prevent the user of the product from being distracted from the basic message, which is, I made this product.
I take it that’s your answer. And if that’s your answer, I will — my follow-up question to that would be, I can think probably, and with my law clerks, perhaps 50,000 examples of instances where the space the trademark provides is used for very distracting messages, probably as much or more so than the one at issue, or disparagement. And what business does Congress have picking out this one, but letting all the other distractions exist?
JUSTICE KAGAN: So, for example, let’s say that I wanted a mark that expressed the idea that all politicians are corrupt, or just that Democrats are corrupt. Either way, it doesn’t matter. I couldn’t get that mark, even though I could get a mark saying that all politicians are virtuous, or that all Democrats are virtuous. Either way, it doesn’t matter. You see the point.
The point is that I can say good things about something, but I can’t say bad things about something. And I would have thought that that was a fairly classic case of viewpoint discrimination.
At the same time, several justices also appeared to question whether the law was properly struck down as unconstitutional. Justice Sotomayor questioned how the denial of their trademark application actually burdened The Slants’ ability to express themselves. She noted that, even though The Slants were not granted a trademark registration, they could still call themselves The Slants and sue other bands if they used the same name. Other justices expressed skepticism that trademark registrations should be treated the same as free speech in a public park. Some quotes from Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are provided below:
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Then I have a question for you. This is a bit different than most cases. No one is stopping your client from calling itself The Slants. No one is stopping them from advertising themselves that way, or signing contracts that way, or engaging in any activity, except that stopping someone else from using the same trademark. But even that they could do. Because you don’t need a registered trademark to sue under the Lanham Act’s entitlement for the confusion of the public in the use of any kind of registered or unregistered mark. If another band called themselves Slants, they would be subject to deceptive advertisements because they wouldn’t be this Slants.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: You want us to say that trademark law is just like a public park — the public park, a public forum, the classic example of where you can say anything you want. We treat this — we treat trademarks just like we treat speech in a public park. Thank you very much. Good-bye. That’s it. That’s your argument.
MR. CONNELL: It — it is my argument. I think the limitation on that, as I said before, are the categories of historically prescribable speech.
JUSTICE KAGAN: Well, Mr. Connell, this can’t be right, because think of all the other things, the other — I mean, I’ll call them content distinctions because they are — that trademark law just makes.
So there is a big difference. You are asking the government to endorse your name to the extent of protecting it in a way that it chooses not to. So it — there is a reason why the argument’s appealing. And why shouldn’t we consider it in those ways when your speech is not being burdened in any traditional way?
As with its other cases, the Supreme Court’s decision on this case can be expected anytime from within the next few months to when the Court recesses for summer.
In the meantime, The Slants appear to be having some fun with the controversy. They have titled their new EP “The Band Who Must Not Be Named.” Below is an image from the band’s Twitter account reflecting the same phrase.
Posted on 1/20/2017 by Deakin T. Lauer
The Oregon band “The Slants” has been trying to obtain a federal trademark registration for their name since 2011. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has repeatedly denied that registration, finding the name disparaging to persons of Asian descent. By statute, the PTO refuses trademark registrations that:
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 …
35 U.S.C. § 1052(a) (emphasis added)
The members of the dance rock band are of Asian descent and they picked “Slants” as their band name to reappropriate that term. To the PTO, however, the goal or purpose of the band in using the term is unimportant. In its rejection of the Slants’ trademark application, the PTO argued that statements by the band about reappropriation only prove that the term is indeed a slur and that the disparagement clause applies.
If this restriction on trademark registrations sounds to you like it is in conflict with the First Amendment’s prohibition against laws that “abridge the freedom of speech,” you are not alone; the Federal Circuit agrees. In a 9-3 en banc decision issued in December 2015, the Federal Circuit held that the exclusion of “disparaging” marks violates the First Amendment. The PTO sought review of this decision and the Supreme Court will now consider whether the disparagement provision of Section 1052(a) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
This case has implications that extend well beyond the music scene. The Washington Redskins, for one, are watching this case carefully. The NFL team has been litigating the right to register the name Redskins, publicly and in the courts, for over 20 years. The first challenge came in 1992, when a group of Native Americans sought cancellation of the trademark registration, asserting that the mark is offensive and disparaging. The mark was initially canceled, but then reinstated on appeal. More recently, in 2014, another group of plaintiffs convinced the PTO to cancel the Redskins trademark registration. That decision has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeal for the Fourth Circuit. The Redskins also sought to have the Supreme Court bypass the Fourth Circuit and consider the Redskins case along with the Slants case, but it declined to do so.
The Slants case will be heard by the Supreme Court sometime this term, which runs from October 2016 to June 2017.
Posted on 10/1/2016 by Deakin T. Lauer
Winemakers often name their wines after family members. But what if the name of one of your children is already registered by another winemaker? If you have more than one child, consider combining it with the other child’s name to create a new mark. In addition to appeasing both children, it may reduce the likelihood that your mark will be confused with the registered mark.
In Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc., dba Dalla Valle Vineyards v. Georgallis Holdings, LLC. (Fed. Cir. June 24, 2016), the Federal Circuit considered the appeal of Oakville’s challenge of the registration of MAYARI by Georgallis based on its current registration of the mark MAYA for wine. Although both marks at issue were word marks not limited to any particular style, the two marks are shown below as they have been used by the parties.
Despite starting with the same four letters, the Federal Circuit rejected Oakville’s assertion that MAYARI is confusingly similar to MAYA because it would be dissected by consumers as MAYA + RI. Although originating as a portmanteau of the names of the owner’s daughters (Maya and Arianna), the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the word MAYARI—appears as a unitary mark and would be perceived by US customers as a “coinage without meaning.”
This is not the first time that Oakville has failed to prevail on a challenge relating to the mark MAYA. In 2013, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the USPTO dismissed Oakville’s opposition for the registration of TAMAYA for wine. See Oakville Hills Cellar, Inc. dba Dalla Valle Vineyards v. Vina Casa Tamaya S.A., Opposition No. 91189443 (April 15, 2013).
Posted on 06/26/2016 by Deakin T. Lauer
Noble Brewing Company dba GoodLife Brewing Co., based on Bend, Oregon, produces a session ale it calls BREW SHED. Otter Creek Brewing Company in Vermont, which does business as The Shed Brewery, has objected to this use based on its federal registrations of SHED and THE SHED for beer. On May 18, 2016, Otter Creek filed a lawsuit in Vermont alleging trademark infringement and unfair completion by GoodLife.
The GoodLife and The Shed Brewery’s use of the two marks are shown below.
Posted on 05/18/2016 by Deakin T. Lauer