• Home
  • Meet Your Attorney
  • Intellectual Property
    • Copyright Protection
    • Trade Secrets and Unfair Competition
    • Patents
    • Trademarks
  • Business Law
    • Asset Purchase Agreements
    • Business Formations
    • Business Plans
    • Consulting Agreements
    • Licensing and Negotiation
    • Non-Disclosure and Non-Compete Agreement
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution
  • Featured Clients
    • Nitroponics
    • Cukoo Nest Art Studio
    • The Locals Mix
    • Teresa Rand Consulting
    • Censys Technologies
    • Oogaa
    • Crisbee
    • Epic Axe Throwing
    • Xena Intelligent Security
    • Pizzamico
    • Kimberly Faith
    • Illumin8er
  • News
    • Office Moving 08.08.20
    • Copyright Fees 03.17.20
    • TikTok Blockchain 03.17.20
    • Skidmore V. Zeppelin 03.17.20
    • SCORE 02.18.2020
    • IP Gender Pay Gap 02.04.2020
    • Trade US and China 01.21.2020
    • Sandman Super Lawyers 09.24.2019
    • Skidmore V. Zeppelin 09.24.2019
    • The Slants 09.24.2019
    • Costly Patents 05.28.2019
    • Sandman Law Philly 05.28.2019
    • SCORE 04.16.2019
    • Section Meeting Volusia 04.16.2019
    • Sandman Middle District 02.12.2019
    • Women Inventors 02.12.2019
    • Electronic Revival 12.20.2018
  • Contact Us

The Slants: Supreme Court Case from Trademark Application

In January of last year, a case involving the Asian-American band The Slants was brought in front of the Supreme Court. The case discussed the issue of the band’s name, “The Slants” being denied trademark protection on the grounds that it was a disparaging trademark. The law does not provide federal trademark protection to marks that may disparage institutions, national symbols, people, or beliefs. This law isn’t meant to limit free speech but to prevent access to government protection for such marks. The band has stated that they do not intend to disparage anyone and hoped that the band name would help reform the term to be less negative. The Supreme Court has demonstrated some willingness to protect these marks with one Justice indicating that government programs cannot decide to deny access due to speakers’ viewpoints. The deputy solicitor general on the case, Malcolm L. Stewart, stated that mixing messages within trademarks can be distracting and that the government can prevent these distractions. In response a Justice stated that distracting trademarks are frequently approved, and that Congress doesn’t have a basis to pick this specific mark out while allowing the rest through. So far, the Court seems to be leaning towards protecting this mark and possibly other similar marks as well.
A good summary of the case entitled, “Supreme Court Rocks the Trademark Office in ‘Slants’ Case” on IPWatchDog can be found at, https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/26/supreme-court-rocks-trademark-office-slants-case/id=84967/
Contact
386-206-2898
Info@sandmanip.com
Address
125 Basin Street, Suite 206 Daytona Beach, FL 32114
© 2021 Sandman Law Office, PLLC

We use cookies to enable essential functionality on our website, and analyze website traffic. By clicking Accept you consent to our use of cookies. Read about how we use cookies.

Your Cookie Settings

We use cookies to enable essential functionality on our website, and analyze website traffic. Read about how we use cookies.

Cookie Categories

Essential

These cookies are strictly necessary to provide you with services available through our websites. You cannot refuse these cookies without impacting how our websites function. You can block or delete them by changing your browser settings, as described under the heading "Managing cookies" in the Privacy and Cookies Policy.

Analytics

These cookies collect information that is used in aggregate form to help us understand how our websites are being used or how effective our marketing campaigns are.