Erik Brunetti is not one step closer to being able to federally-register his vulgar and scandalous FUCT trademark for clothing; his portfolio of applications remain log jammed (here and here):

So, scandalous trademark applications are still on hold at the U.S. Trademark Office, since the government is now asking for the Supreme Court to reverse Brunetti. First prediction, check.

As you will recall, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Brunetti, struck down the scandalous and immoral bar on federal trademark registration, as a violation of Free Speech.

The government now contends that denying federal registration of scandalous or immoral matter does not constitute viewpoint discrimination, so Brunetti isn’t controlled by the Tam decision.

The scandalous and immoral registration bar has been applied since the 1905 Trademark Act, and “scandalous” is interpreted to mean, under current attitudesshocking to the sense of propriety.

Putting aside whether much of anything in our current culture can be considered shocking, if it’s possible, doesn’t shocking content express a certain viewpoint, namely one with shock value?

And, if Justice Alito was right in Tam that the disparagement bar is a “happy talk clause,” then isn’t the scandalous bar a “tranquility clause,” appropriately and fully cleansing of any shock value?

Will the Supreme Court decide to review the Brunetti decision? I’ve predicted it won’t, but it should, so I’m hoping to be wrong, it would be priceless to see the Court address Section 7:

“Why did the Tam Court not acknowledge that a Certificate of Registration is issued by the USPTO, under authority of the Department of Commerce, “in the name of the United States of America,” under Section 7 of the Lanham Act, and instead proceed to mock the governmental speech argument without addressing or attempting to explain away this difficult fact?”

That drum we have been beating hard, so kudos to the government in pressing Section 7:

“Congress’s directve that the USPTO refuse federal trademark registration to vulgar words and lewd sexual images is consistent with those First Amendment principles. Congress legitimately determined that a federal agency should not use government funds to issue certificates ‘in the name of the United States of America’ conferring statutory benefits for use of vulgar words and lewd sexual images. 15 U.S.C. 1057(a). Although [Erik Brunetti] has a First Amendment right to use a vulgar word as a mark for his clothing line, he has no comparable right to require the government to register vulgar terms, issue registration certificates for them in the name of the United States, inscribe them on the USPTO’s Principal Register, and bestow valuable benefits on the markholders’ use of the terms in commerce.”

Even if it ends again, with the Free Speech argument prevailing, for reasons beyond my beliefs (here, here, and here), nevertheless it would be helpful for predicting the fate of other portions of the Lanham Act that are content-based and that have been called into question. Wait and see:

Trademarks consisting of or comprising “scandalous or immoral” matter still won’t be granted federal registration “in the name of the United States of America,” at least for the time being.

Immediately on the heels of the International Trademark Association’s 140th Annual Meeting in Seattle, and our well-received panel discussion concerning Trademarks and Free Speech, the United States Patent and Trademark Office announced it will continue to hold on to and suspend trademark applications containing scandalous or immoral matter, until further notice.

The Trademark Office is waiting to see whether the federal government will appeal the Brunetti decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. What I would give to be a fly on the wall in those discussions.

As you may recall, a three-member panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), ruled last December that the “scandalous or immoral” statutory bar to registration violates a trademark applicant’s Free Speech, overturning a part of trademark law in existence since 1905.

Since the federal government’s request that the entire CAFC reconsider the three-member panel decision Brunetti was denied in April, the government now has until July 11 to seek Supreme Court review or ask for more time to decide, stay tuned. Learned John Welch predicts no appeal.

During our INTA panel discussion, I predicted the government will seek review of Brunetti by the U.S. Supreme Court. I also predicted the Supreme Court will pass on the request, stay tuned.

Even if it might be tempting to believe that — in our present culture — anything goes and nothing can rise to the level of scandalousness any longer, so why bother trying to salvage a statutory relic from more than 100 years ago, I’m thinking the federal government won’t throw in the towel yet.

As we’ve written before, the Brunetti decision, didn’t anchor itself to the viewpoint discriminatory requirement from the Supreme Court in Tam, instead focusing on mere content discrimination to justify invalidation of a more than a century old part of federal trademark law.

This much easier test for invalidation puts at risk many other portions of federal trademark law, so I’m thinking the federal government can’t let the mere content discriminatory requirement of Brunetti stand without at least trying for Supreme Court review for further direction and guidance.

It’s also hard to believe the federal government is truly ready to have the USPTO knowingly begin to federally register obscene, profane, and sexually explicit matter as trademarks, “in the name of the United States of America,” for the first time in history. What’s your prediction?

UPDATE: Susan Decker of Bloomberg interviewed and shares quotes yours truly on the subject, here.

Last Friday was a big day for Erik Brunetti. He won his appeal at the CAFC, opening the door to federal trademark registration of his four-letter-word “fuct” clothing and fashion brand name.

The same door swung wide open for all other vulgar, scandalous, and immoral designations used as trademarks, because the 112-year old registration prohibition was found to violate free speech.

You may recall where I take a knee on the free speech argument as it relates to the government’s issuance of federal trademark registrations, see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

I’m continuing to believe Congress has the power under the Commerce Clause to distance itself from and not be viewed as endorsing certain subject matter on public policy grounds, especially when Certificates of Registration are issued “in the name of the United States of America.”

Having said that, I’m thinking the federal government has done a less than stellar job of articulating and advocating for this right, which may very well explain the current state of affairs.

What is striking about the CAFC ruling is its breadth. It isn’t guided by the Supreme Court’s Tam decision — requiring viewpoint discrimination — as the Tam Court found with disparagement.

The CAFC did not decide whether the “scandalous and immoral” clause constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination, instead it seized on mere content as lower hanging fruit for invalidation.

The problem with focusing on content alone is that it proves too much. Trademarks, by definition, are made up of content, and many other provisions of federal law limit the right to register based on content, so, if this analysis holds, what additional previously-thought-well-settled provisions of federal trademark law will fall? Importantly, some even allow for injunctive relief: tarnishment.

Asked before, but will dilution by tarnishment survive this kind of strict free speech scrutiny? According to the CAFC in Brunetti, strict scrutiny applies even without viewpoint discrimination.

All that leads me to explore with you Brunetti’s line of “fuct” clothing, and in particular, this t-shirt which is surprisingly for sale online, here.

We’ll see for how long it’s available online, or whether Mr. Brunetti will need to Go Further, to get another brand’s attention, hello, Ford:

It’s hard to imagine the famous Ford logo, consisting of the distinctive script and blue oval, not being considered sufficiently famous and worthy of protection against dilution — without a showing of likelihood of confusion. But, given Tam and Brunetti, is a dilution by tarnishment claim even viable, or is it just another federal trademark provision about to fall, in favor of free speech.

Just because Mr. Brunetti may be anointed with a federal registration for the word “fuct” doesn’t mean his depiction of the word in the above style and design is lawful for use or registration.

So, if Ford does pursue the Brunetti t-shirt, under a dilution by tarnishment theory, and if it were considered to be a viable claim, in the end, might Mr. Brunetti be the one, let’s say, uniquely suited — to vanquish tarnishment protection from the Lanham Act?

Or, will another potty-mouth brand be the one to seriously probe the constitutionality of dilution protection against tarnishment?

Last but not least, and sadly for me, last Friday also was a big day for Mr. Daniel Snyder too.

— Jessica Gutierrez Alm, Attorney

Simon Tam wasn’t the only one barred by the Lanham Act from reclaiming a historically derogatory term.

Dykes on Bikes is a nonprofit lesbian motorcycle organization.  According to their website, the group’s mission is to “support philanthropic endeavors in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and women’s communities, and to reach out to empower a community of diverse women through rides, charity events, Pride events, and education.”  In 2015, Dykes on Bikes tried to register their logo as a service mark for entertainment.  The application was put on hold pending the outcome of Matal v. Tam, as the Supreme Court considered whether Simon Tam could register his band name—The Slants.  In view of the Court’s landmark decision holding the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, Dykes on Bikes will move forward with its trademark application as well.

It was in 2003 when Dykes on Bikes first sought to register the name of their organization as a service mark for education and entertainment services.  Registration was refused on the basis that the mark was disparaging to lesbians.  The organization appealed to the TTAB, arguing that the word “dyke” had become a positive term and a symbol of pride and empowerment.  Dykes on Bikes won their appeal before the TTAB.  But when the mark was published for opposition, an individual named Michael McDermott filed an opposition claiming the mark was disparaging to men.  Ultimately, McDermott’s opposition was dismissed for lack of standing.  In particular, McDermott failed to show either (1) he possesses a trait or characteristic implicated by the proposed mark; or (2) others share the same belief of harm from the proposed mark.  The TTAB dismissed McDermott’s opposition and the Federal Circuit affirmed.  DIKES ON BIKES was successfully registered in 2007.

Because they had already won the disparagement battle for their first mark, Dykes on Bikes was surprised to face another disparagement refusal for a second mark.  In 2015, the group sought to register their logo as a service mark.  They sought review by the TTAB, and the case was put on hold pending the outcome of Matal v. Tam.  Dykes on Bikes also filed an amicus brief in the Tam case, arguing in favor of Tam’s position.  After the Supreme Court held in Tam that “the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” the DYKES ON BIKES W M C logo was approved for publication.

Dykes on Bikes and The Slants had similar goals.  As Dykes on Bikes described in their amicus brief, both groups “have chosen to reclaim self-referential terms as trademarks for the benefit of the groups those terms refer to.”  They also drew a distinction with respect to a certain NFL team name: “the Washington Redskins have chosen a term that is unrelated to the people who identify as members of the football team and is commonly understood to be a slur which members of the identified group have not reclaimed.  Whatever the constitutionality of the PTO’s treatment of the Redskins mark, the team’s use of that name is immoral and Dykes on Bikes encourages the Washington Redskins to give up their trademarked name as a matter of respect and decency.”

While the Tam decision may have opened the proverbial flood gates of offensive trademark applications, it also allows for these positive trademark uses in reclaiming derogatory terms.

Of course, loyal readers have been eagerly awaiting Part III of the series (see Part I and Part II) focusing on Tam’s intersection of federal trademark registration and the First Amendment.

In terms of the certain and practical implications flowing from the decision, it opens the door to a host of new trademark applications containing religious and racial slurs, including the N-word.

Perhaps this explains, in part, why the Justice Department flipflopped on the issue and now says that the “scandalous and immoral” provision of Section 2(a) actually can survive Matal v. Tam.

If the Federal Circuit allows the “scandalous and immoral” provision to survive Tam and attempts to craft some sort of reasoning as to why it should be treated differently than disparagement, we’ve already pointed to how that may impact pending and suspended refusals of the R-Word.

On the other hand, if the Federal Circuit eliminates “scandalous and immoral” registration refusals relying on the Supreme Court’s Tam decision, as consistency of analysis would seem to require, how many of the newly filed scandalous marks actually will be published in the Official Gazette?

Another interesting question might be whether any of these obviously offensive applications will satisfy the essential predicates to registration, and actually adorn the Principal Register, with official Certificates of Registration issued in the name of the United States of America?

It’s worth asking whether the Supreme Court’s destruction of the even-handed framework that the USPTO devised in applying the disparagement provision of Section 2(a) (conscious of favoring neither side on an issue and determined to ignore an Applicant’s intent), inevitably will lead to selectively enforced analyses above the table driven by emotions residing beneath the table.

One area for concern might be the Trademark Office’s growing interest in refusing registration of matter deemed merely informational; presumed “incapable” of performing a trademark function. I’m left wondering, how tempting might it be to use this rather blunt tool on seriously offensive subject matter after Section 2(a) has been stripped of its previous reach in denying registration?

Having said that, will or should the Trademark Office reassess Exam Guide 2-17, concerning Merely Informational Matter, in light of the Tam Court’s perspective on viewpoint discrimination. Seems like it should to me. So, I’m also left wondering, exactly how might “merely informational matter” not express a viewpoint, making such a refusal presumptively invalid?

Since the federal government is apparently powerless to prevent the registration of disparaging trademarks because doing so constitutes viewpoint discrimination that cannot withstand strict scrutiny, what is the fate of federal dilution law, especially the provisions against tarnishment of famous marks? Wes noted some serious questions, others have too, here, here, and here.

In particular, Justice Alito labeled the disparagement registration ban as a “happy-talk clause,” adding that “[g]iving offense is a viewpoint,” and Justice Kennedy reinforced that viewpoint, saying: “To prohibit all sides from criticizing their opponents makes a law more viewpoint based, not less so.” Given that clarity, does this defecating dog trademark not express a viewpoint too?

The Applicant defended Greyhound’s opposition, in part, by arguing that “reasonable people would not be offended because the mark mocks the craze for shirts bearing prestigious emblems.” Doesn’t that sound a lot like a viewpoint being expressed with the defecating dog trademark?

Yet, in rejecting the Applicant’s arguments, and in granting Greyhound summary judgment and refusing registration of the defecating dog mark, the TTAB concluded, back in 1988:

“We do not find applicant’s arguments to be persuasive. Even assuming that people are not offended by the sight of a dog defecating on the ground, applicant’s mark, used on its goods, is a dog defecating on a shirt. This certainly produces a different effect from the viewing of a dog defecating in its normal environment.”

“Further, applicant admits that some people would find the depiction of feces in the mark offensive and that people ‘expect to find something a little out of the ordinary when they see this type of applique.’ In effect, applicant is admitting that the mark has a shock value, and we view the shock to be the offensiveness of the depiction.” (citation omitted)

Does this not constitute “giving offense” and isn’t it fair to say, it “expresses ideas that offend” — to use Justice Alito’s words? Do shocking images and content not convey a viewpoint?

Justice Kennedy stated the disparagement provision “reflects the Government’s disapproval of a subset of messages it finds offensive. This is the essence of viewpoint discrimination.”

He went on to say:

“Unlike content based discrimination, discrimination based on viewpoint, including a regulation that targets speech for its offensiveness, remains of serious concern in the commercial context.”

If so, and if the “scandalous and immoral” provision of Section 2(a) does not survive Constitutional scrutiny in Brunetti, then how does Greyhound, or any other owner of a famous brand, prevent registration (and use) of trademarks designed to express a negative viewpoint about a famous brand while also serving as a trademark for Applicant’s own goods and/or services?

And, what about the below RED SOX/SEX ROD example? The TTAB ruled that the stylized SEX ROD mark “would be viewed as a sexually vulgar version of the club’s symbol and as making an offensive comment on or about the club.” That sounds like viewpoint discrimination too. So, on what basis can the Boston Red Sox object with the disparagement provision gone, and if dilution by tarnishment is also considered unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination?

Can dilution tarnishment survive the Tam Court’s strict scrutiny against viewpoint discrimination?

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the filing of the petition to cancel the R-Word registrations held by Pro-Football, Inc., the NFL franchise playing near the Nation’s capital.

Indian Country Today has published an interview with Suzan Shown Harjo, lead petitioner in Harjo et al v. Pro-Football, Inc., and organizer of Blackhorse et al v. Pro-Football, Inc.

Thanks to Indian Country Today and Suzan Shown Harjo for sharing this interview. Its documentation of history is so important for anyone who cares where we’ve been as a country and where we’re headed; it is valuable and timeless, powerful and compelling.

I’m so thankful to Suzan for the opportunity to play a small part in this long yet unfinished history, and here is a photo of us together on May 15, 2015, at a conference in Hinckley, Minnesota, during a celebration honoring her lifetime of advocacy for Native peoples:

Suzan’s heretofore and ongoing work is truly remarkable and a testament to who she is, even in the face of ignorant vitriol, and to how many lives she has touched and continues to touch in such a profound, generous, and meaningful way.

As I reflect on the historic petition to cancel we filed together on September 10, 1992, one thing I can’t get out of my mind is the national press conference question I answered from the Washington D.C. press corps, something like “what about the First Amendment?”

As I recall, my response was, something like, the beauty of this cause of action is that the First Amendment is not implicated because removing the federal government’s erroneous approval of the racial slur doesn’t compel the team to change the name, having said that, it is of course our hope that the team does the right thing and pick another name.

Who could have guessed it would take nearly a quarter century to reverse prior court of appeals precedent (McGinley) saying Section 2(a) did not violate Free Speech or the First Amendment, and then to have the Supreme Court agree that refusing federal registration of disparaging matter under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act is viewpoint discrimination and a violation of Free Speech.

Thankfully much awareness has been raised and good has been done over the past quarter century, while the NFL and Washington franchise double down together on their joint investment to retain exclusive rights in a racial slur.

Hopefully with increased awareness raised and the movement and pressure continuing, we won’t have to wait another quarter century for justice and clearer thinking on this issue by the NFL, FEDEX, and other NFL sponsors, if not Daniel Snyder himself.

As I reflect back a quarter century ago, to the day, it was never about banning the team’s Freedom of Speech, it was about removing the federal government’s approval of a racial slur as a federally-registered trademark, and providing team ownership with a financial incentive to reconsider their choice to ignore the obvious, as Suzan has noted:

“We liked the approach of a pocketbook incentive case that did not force a name-change, but counted on the greed of the team owner to drop the name if exclusive federal trademarks were cancelled.”

“The pocketbook approach put things squarely where pro sports differed from educational sports: money. In most name and symbol changes made in educational sports, we had a way of discussing the issues and solutions, because there almost always were educators and officials who genuinely cared about the well-being of the students. In pro sports, even the health and safety issues seemed focused on liability and not on human beings, and some paid fans seemed physically provocative, while others seemed orchestrated online to attack and defame those of us who were challenging the NFL franchise in orderly legal forums.”

“Another reason I liked the pocketbook approach was that it didn’t impede anyone’s free speech. I was at WBAI-FM  in 1973, when the “seven dirty words” case started down the road to the Supreme Court’s 1978 ruling against free speech. The free speech flagship station of the Pacifica network, WBAI aired a cut from Comedian George Carlin’s “Class Clown” album and a listener complained to the Federal Communications Commission that his young son was wrongly exposed to dirty words. George Carlin’s “Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television” was based on an earlier routine by Comedian Lenny Bruce that was an excuse for one of his many arrests and jailings for using dirty words. The upshot of FCC v. Pacifica Foundation was that the federal government can restrict free speech in certain instances, the opposite of the Court’s 2017 ruling in The Slants case against the PTO, which rendered part of the trademark law unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment. We never thought we were violating the NFL’s freedom of expression by using the same section of the trademark law.”

Ironically, as team owner Daniel Synder freely and proudly admits, the team’s ability and commitment to continue using the name will never change, even in the face of the mountain of evidence demonstrating its offensiveness and meaning as a racial slur, and even in the face of losing on the merits three times (twice at the TTAB, once at the E.D. Va.), or more.

So much for the Supreme Court’s concern that Section 2(a) actually chills Freedom of Speech, because according to Snyder, even after losing on the merits he has reaffirmed: “We will never change the name of the team,” “It’s that simple. NEVER — you can use caps.”

So, in the end, it is about the money, and the NFL clearly has had sufficient funds to defend the indefensible for a quarter century now, so isn’t it time FEDEX and other NFL sponsors step up and get on the right side of this issue, with their money? Let’s all follow the money.

Here’s to you Suzan, be well, Aho.

Daniel Snyder, NFL owners, FEDEX, and other NFL sponsors, take note, breaking news from courageous Neal M. Brown, Ed.D., Head of School, Green Acres School in Bethesda, Maryland, about twenty miles from FEDEX Field:

“[T]he term ‘Redskin’ is a racial slur. Its use, whether intentional or not, can be deeply insulting and offensive. It is a term that demeans a group of people. Similarly, the team’s logo also can reasonably be viewed as racially demeaning. At best, the image is an ethnic stereotype that promotes cultural misunderstanding; at worst, it is intensely derogatory.”

“As such, having students or staff members on campus wearing clothing with this name and/or this team logo feels profoundly at odds with our community’s mission and values. We pledge in our Diversity Statement to foster both ‘an inclusive and uplifting community’ and ‘a sense of belonging for everyone in the Green Acres community.’ Similarly, our Statement of Inclusion calls upon us to ‘welcome people of any race, national, or ancestral origin,’ among other social identifiers. Further, as our guidelines for ‘appropriate dress’ in the Community Handbook require students to ‘dress in ways that demonstrate respect for others,’ we cannot continue to allow children or staff members—however well intentioned—to wear clothing that disparages a race of people.”

“I ask that you please not send your children to school wearing clothing with either the team name or logo in the year and years to come. I will be speaking with students to share with them my decision and to enlist their understanding and support. Additionally, we invite you to reach out to us with any questions you may have about how to discuss this with your child.”

Again, not so fast, Mr. Snyder, the R-Word is looking awfully scandalous these days, and this issue isn’t going away . . . .

See coverage from USA Today, Washington Post, Washington Times, and Sports Illustrated.

UPDATE from Time: The NFL Needs to Stop Promoting a Racial Slur

Lee Corso (former coach and ESPN football analyst) frequently utters this famous sports media catchphrase on ESPN’s “College GameDay” program: “Not so fast, my friend!

The first three words of that phrase come to mind upon hearing that THRILLED Daniel Snyder (majority owner of the NFL football franchise nearest the Nation’s Capitol) is celebrating Simon Tam’s (and Tam’s talented lawyers’) recent victory at the Supreme Court.

Excluded are the last two words as inapplicable, as I’ve never met Mr. Snyder, so I can’t say he’s my friend, and if even a small fraction of what Rolling Stone says about him is true, friendship seems unlikely, unless of course, he engages the services of an expert to rebrand the franchise (without the racial slur), something I asked for eight years ago.

Yet, “not so fast,” as a week ago, the government filed a brief with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking the Federal Circuit to affirm the TTAB’s refusal to register FUCT based on the scandalous portion of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, despite Tam.

The Department of Justice further contends that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Tam does not implicate the First Amendment in terms of scandalous matter, because unlike the stricken disparagement portion of 2(a), the remaining scandalous portion is viewpoint neutral.

To the extent the Justice Department prevails and the current bar on registration of “scandalous” matter survives First Amendment scrutiny with the Federal Circuit’s review in the Brunetti case, this could impact Daniel Snyder’s currently suspended R-Word trademark applications (here, here, and here), and the NFL’s suspended Boston Redskins application.

While the decades-old R-Word registrations challenged in Harjo and Blackhorse appear safe from cancellation given the ruling in Tam, what stops others from opposing registration of any future R-Word applications (or any of the currently suspended applications, if published) as containing scandalous matter in violation of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act?

If the scandalous bar to registration survives First Amendment scrutiny, opposers (unlike cancellation petitioners) would have the significant benefit of only needing to show (at the time of an opposition decision) that the current R-Word applications have scandalous matter.

It’s a question of the timing of proof necessary, in other words, no time machine would be required to determine how the relevant public perceived the R-Word marks back in the late 1960s when the first R-Word registration issued for the team; those would not be at issue.

It’s also a question of who comprises the relevant public. For disparaging matter, it was Native Americans. For scandalous matter, it would be the general public, although not necessarily a majority, but instead a “substantial composite of the general public.”

The Act’s present prohibition on the registration of scandalous matter reaches matter that is “shocking to the sense of propriety, offensive to the conscience or moral feelings or calling out for condemnation.” Wouldn’t unambiguous racial slurs qualify for this treatment?

Who’s ready to carry the next, but new flame, if needed, to oppose registration of any R-Word applications that publish for opposition, contending that a substantial composite of the general public finds the applied-for marks “shocking” to their sense of propriety and/or “offensive” to their conscience?

Even those who fought hard to undue the disparagement provision of Section 2(a) for Simon Tam, see Daniel Snyder’s team name in a very different light, and let’s also say, not a very sympathetic light. And, the general public today is not the public from 50 years ago.

Finally, given the vast public attention and support this issue has received over the last quarter century, it would be more than interesting to see what kind of a record could be developed on the scandalous ground for registration refusal, today, and not decades ago.

So, not so fast, let’s see what happens to the scandalous portion of Section 2(a) in Brunetti, before allowing Daniel Snyder to celebrate Tam too strongly, my friends.

UPDATE: The NFL’s Boston Redskins trademark application has been removed from suspension, reports Erik Pelton, so, who will oppose if published, and why hasn’t the USPTO issued a new refusal on scandalous grounds yet?

We can be certain of one thing for sure, the Supreme Court’s decision today, striking down the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act will be analyzed for some time.

The Court called the provision of the Lanham Act barring the federal registration of trademarks that consist of or comprise matter that may disparage persons, a “happy-talk clause,” concluding it violates the First Amendment.

The debate over the implications of the Tam decision has commenced, so stay tuned.

Those of you who know me well can appreciate, this is a tough pill to swallow, we’ll have to see what good can come from it.

And, the answer to a question I raised back in 2015 apparently will be answered “no,” but not for reasons I had hoped.

Ron, I had envisioned writing a very different post about the Supreme Court’s long-anticipated decision in Tam, you, your team, and Mr. Tam have made history.

By the way, anyone know who coined the phrase Happy-Talk Clause, I must have missed that in the briefing?

Throughout the past decade, attorneys, judges, plaintiffs, and defendants have invested thousands of hours in the fight over offensive trademarks. Most of the public is aware of the controversy surrounding the Washington Redskins, who continue to be embroiled in litigation that is currently pending with the Federal Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. But even more important is the pending litigation at the Supreme Court, where the Asian-American band The Slants have challenged the constitutionality of the law that prevents the federal government from granting the benefits of federal registration to trademarks that disparage groups of people.

We’ve discussed the history and merits of the case at at length. I won’t get into the details in this post. However, with the Cleveland Indians in town to play the Minnesota Twins, I was reminded that the Cleveland organization seemed to be escaping the glare of the media attention that had been focused on the Redskins and the Slants. Apart from the name of the team itself, Cleveland’s logos throughout only seem to worsen the potential to disparage or offend Native Americans. For reference, the logos and years of use are reproduced below:

Indians Logos

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Slants case (In re Tam) on January 18th. But while we await a decision from the Court, the Cleveland Indians provide us with a reminder that, regardless of what a court may say, the court of public opinion may have the final word. In fact, we have learned over the last two weeks that Major League Baseball’s Commissioner Rob Manfred has been in discussions with the Cleveland organization regarding the “Chief Wahoo” logo since the end of the World Series. The Commissioner has publicly stated that he is pushing the team “to transition away” from the logo. Just last January, the MLB awarded Cleveland the right to host the 2019 All-Star game. With recent events in Charlotte and throughout the U.S., it’s hard not to wonder whether Chief Wahoo’s retirement date may already be set.

We’ll have to wait and see how the Supreme Court rules in In re Tam but, as with the case of the Cleveland Indians, not all trademark battles are won in the court of law.