Subscribe to Original Pechanga

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Monday, June 19, 2017


The case was brought by a band called the SLANTS, an Asian group, but the Redskins will benefit.

 The result: UNANIMOUS Verdict 8-0, Gorsuch not involved.  READ the decision HERE

The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the
application based on a provision of federal law prohibiting
the registration of trademarks that may “disparage . . . or
bring . . . into contemp[t] or disrepute” any “persons, living
or dead.” 15 U. S. C. §1052(a). We now hold that this
provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle:
Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend


While the government may discriminate based on viewpoint when it comes to speech that is treated as the government’s own speech, trademarks are private speech (albeit protected by the government against certain forms of infringement) and not government speech.


There is also a deeper problem with the argument that
commercial speech may be cleansed of any expression
likely to cause offense. The commercial market is well
stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent
figures and groups, and the line between commercial and
non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case
illustrates. If affixing the commercial label permits the
suppression of any speech that may lead to political or
social “volatility,” free speech would be endangered.
* * *
For these reasons, we hold that the disparagement
clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First
Amendment. The judgment of the Federal Circuit is

No comments: