That is the question, at least for the day.
It’s also a question we hope the U.S. Supreme Court will address.
In particular, does a careful focus on the USPTO’s routine application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, help shed light on why Section 2(a) actually doesn’t violate the First Amendment?
Last December, we discussed In re Tam, and how the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit wrongly held that the First Amendment’s protection of speech rendered Section 2(a) — the statutory provision prohibiting the registration of marks that may disparage — unconstitutional.
As we have written before, just because a trademark exists doesn’t necessarily mean it is entitled to federal registration. The right to use is not coextensive with the right to register.
Indeed, various public policy considerations underlying our federal trademark law allow for use, but still may preclude registration of a trademark “on account of its nature“.
Like Section 2(a), Section 2(c) forbids the government from granting registration to a trademark “on account of its nature” if it “consists of or comprises” certain types of defined subject matter.
The specific subject matter denied registration under Section 2(a) — even if it performs as a trademark — includes matter that is scandalous or immoral, or matter that may disparage persons, among others.
Whereas, the specific subject matter denied registration under Section 2(c) — even if it performs as a trademark — includes the name identifying a particular living individual whose written consent to register is not of record at the USPTO.
For nearly a decade, Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act consistently has been invoked by the USPTO to refuse registration of any trademark alluding to President Barack Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, even those marks with a clearly negative political message and content:
- I’m Surviving Obama for magnetic bumper stickers;
- Obamadontcare for clothing;
- Obama the Blamer for clothing;
- Obama Trauma for clothing;
- Get Obama Packing for bumper stickers;
- This Country Belongs to God Not to Obama for coffee mugs;
- When Obama Starts Talkin His IQ Starts Droppin for imprinting messages on clothing;
- Obama, Your Fired for clothing and bumper stickers;
- It’s Obama’s Fault for clothing;
- Obama ‘Acted Stupidly’ for bumper stickers and clothing;
- Obama O’Bummer for clothing; and
- Obama Bin Lyin for political action committee services, namely, promoting the interests of opposing Barack Obama in the field of politics.
- Hilliary for graphic t-shirts;
- Hillary Schmillary for bumper stickers;
- Hillary Shrillary for bumper stickers; and
- Shut Up Hillary for on-line retail store services featuring t-shirts, caps, pins, mugs, bumper stickers, posters and any other similar products on which a political message may be placed.
So, if the en banc majority is really right in Tam (where commercial speech was at issue), then how can Section 2(c) survive the same First Amendment challenge with political messages?
Political speech is the most important and coveted form of speech protected by the First Amendment, yet each of the above politically-charged marks was refused registration under Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act.
And, just so it is clear that the USPTO is applying Section 2(c) in an evenhanded manner without picking sides, or punishing applicants espousing a negative message about a recognized political figure, these positive ones were refused under Section 2(c) as well:
- Team Hillary for clothing;
- I Can’t Wait to Vote for Hillary for stickers;
- Hillary Rocks for bumper stickers;
- Obama Tist A Positive Change Agent for clothing; and
- Change We Can Believe In Obama for lapel pins.
In the same evenhanded way, in Tam, the USPTO refused registration of THE SLANTS because it met the 2(a) standard, concluding that a substantial composite of persons of Asian descent consider the subject matter to consist of or comprise a racial slur that may disparage persons of Asian descent.
It didn’t matter that Mr. Tam is of Asian descent and he genuinely desired to reclaim the slur as a positive designation. And, it wouldn’t have changed the result if a different non-Asian applicant actually intended to offend those of Asian descent by adopting the same mark. Either way, good or bad intentions, positive or negative messages, since the subject matter in question triggers a Section 2 violation, registration is not allowed.
Perhaps this analysis may add further support to Professor Rebecca Tushnet’s forthcoming Essay (not that she needs it), contending “that In re Tam is wrongly reasoned even given the Supreme Court’s increased scrutiny of commercial speech regulations, and that to hold otherwise and preserve the rest of trademark law would require unprincipled distinctions within trademark law.”
In addition, perhaps it further supports Professor Tushnet’s concern that “disparagement can’t coherently be distinguished from a number of the other bars to registration once the harsh logic of the First Amendment applies. If trademark registration as a whole is constitutionally vulnerable under a particular vision of the First Amendment, that very result counsels against adopting that vision as constitutional doctrine.”
For all the First Amendment wonks that believe the en banc majority of the CAFC got it right in Tam, and are uncomfortable with the USPTO invoking Section 2(a) when the subject matter of a mark consists of or comprises a racial slur, how are you able to defend Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act from the same First Amendment demise, especially when confronted with the above inherently political messages comprising the rejected trademark applications?