Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Holds Bar Against Registration of Immoral or Scandalous Marks Violates the First Amendment
Let's face it. The Lanham Act's prohibition against registration of "immoral … or scandalous marks" has had little impact on most trademark practitioners — except those lucky enough to have edgy clients or unlucky enough to have depraved ones. Scandals in the trademark world are simply hard to come by.
The same is true for Ianacu v. Brunetti, in which the Supreme Court held the Lanham Act's provision barring registration of "immoral … or scandalous" marks to violate constitutionally-protected freedom of speech. See, No. 18-302 (June 24, 2019). Although Justice Kagan made the decision a fun read, it nonetheless is mostly of academic or societal, rather than practical interest — especially since two terms ago, in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Court held the neighboring clause against the registration of potentially disparaging marks unconstitutional. It was only a matter of time before the Court struck down the "immoral or scandalous" prohibition on the same basis.
Falling short of a majority in Tam, the Court succeeded in Brunetti in delivering a bright line rule that the federal registration of trademarks must be viewpoint neutral. In a nutshell, the Court held the bar against registration of immoral or scandalous marks "collided" with well-established free speech doctrine, namely, that laws disadvantaging speech based on the views expressed thereby violate the First Amendment.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.