Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Circuit's Opinion In <i>In re Tam</i>
Among the most treasured and jealously guarded freedoms in the United States is freedom of speech. In the course of protecting that freedom, U.S. courts have found themselves permitting almost all manner of speech, even that which is arguably offensive or deplorable. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has given ever greater deference to individuals' and groups' rights to express themselves. Whether permitting protests at soldiers' funerals (see, Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011)), or depictions of animal cruelty (see, U.S. v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010)), the Court has of late consistently erred on the side of protecting speech.
Notwithstanding this over-arching commitment to an expansive freedom of speech, until quite recently there was still at least one area of federal law governed by notions of decency and an aversion to offensiveness: trademark law. According to 15 U.S.C. '1052(a), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will not register a mark that “[c]onsists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage ' persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute ' .” Under this provision, many marks have been refused registration because of their offensive, scandalous, or disparaging nature. See, e.g., In re Geller, 751 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“STOP THE ISLAMISATION OF AMERICA”); In re Lebanese Arak Corp., 94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1215 (T.T.A.B. 2010) (“MORMON WHISKEY”); In re Heeb Media, LLC, 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (T.T.A.B. 2008) (“ABORT THE REPUBLICANS”). Perhaps the most widely-discussed cancellation of a registration on the ground that the mark is immoral or scandalous is that involving the WASHINGTON REDSKINS team name. In Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 62 F.Supp.3d 498 (2014), No. 1-14-CV-01043-GBL, 2015 WL 4096277 (E.D. Va. July 8, 2015), the district court held that REDSKINS may disparage Native Americans, and for that reason, the Washington Redskins football team was not entitled to a federal registration for its various “REDSKINS” marks. This matter is currently on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
In Re Tam: A Sea-Change
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.