Supreme Court Now Says That The Trademark Office Can't Reject 'Immoral Or Scandalous' Trademarks

from the well-fuck-yeah(tm) dept

This should have been pretty much a foregone conclusion after the Supreme Court’s ruling two years ago in Simon Tam’s case about The Slants trademark. In that case, the Supreme court ruled that part of the Lanham Act that said the government could deny trademarks on “disparaging” marks was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. However, that ruling was a bit messy. The court agreed that the law was unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment, but had two different theories as to why, neither of which got a majority. So the specific law that said the PTO could reject “disparaging” marks was tossed, but technically other content-based restrictions, such as those for “immoral and scandalous” remarks remained on the books. So, pretty quickly that got challenged as well, and now the Supreme Court instead has said that’s unconstitutional too.

The basic reasoning should be obvious: under the First Amendment, the government cannot be in the business of judging the appropriateness of content (for what it’s worth, this is also why Senator Josh Hawley’s silly bill is unconstitutional). Here, the majority decision, written by Justice Kagan, made pretty quick work of the ruling, basically just saying that the same thing that they said in the Tam case applies here as well.

If the ?immoral or scandalous? bar similarly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint, it must also collide with our First Amendment doctrine. The Government does not argue otherwise. In briefs and oral argument, the Government offers a theory for upholding the bar if it is viewpoint-neutral (essentially, that the bar would then be a reasonable condition on a government benefit). See Brief for Petitioner 14?26. But the Government agrees that under Tam it may not ?deny registration based on the views expressed? by a mark. Tr. of Oral Arg. 24. ?As the Court?s Tam decision establishes,? the Government says,?the criteria for federal trademark registration? must be ?viewpoint-neutral to survive Free Speech Clause review.? Pet. for Cert. 19. So the key question becomes: Is the ?immoral or scandalous? criterion in the Lanham Act viewpoint-neutral or viewpoint-based?

It is viewpoint-based. The meanings of ?immoral? and?scandalous? are not mysterious, but resort to some dictionaries still helps to lay bare the problem. When is expressive material ?immoral?? According to a standard definition, when it is ?inconsistent with rectitude, purity,or good morals?; ?wicked?; or ?vicious.? Webster?s New International Dictionary 1246 (2d ed. 1949). Or again, when it is ?opposed to or violating morality?; or ?morally evil.? Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 961 (3d ed. 1947). So the Lanham Act permits registration of marks that champion society?s sense of rectitude and morality, but not marks that denigrate those concepts. And when is such material ?scandalous?? Says a typical definition, when it ?giv[es] offense to the conscience or moral feelings?; ?excite[s] reprobation?; or ?call[s] out condemnation.? Webster?s New International Dictionary, at 2229. Or again, when it is ?shocking to the sense of truth, decency,or propriety?; ?disgraceful?; ?offensive?; or ?disreputable.? Funk & Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary 2186 (1944). So the Lanham Act allows registration of marks when their messages accord with, but not when their messages defy, society?s sense of decency or propriety. Put the pair of overlapping terms together and the statute, on its face, distinguishes between two opposed sets of ideas: those aligned with conventional moral standards and those hostile to them; those inducing societal nods of approval and those provoking offense and condemnation. The statute favors the former, and disfavors the latter. ?Love rules?? ?Always be good?? Registration follows. ?Hate rules?? ?Always be cruel?? Not according to the Lanham Act?s ?immoral or scandalous? bar.

The facial viewpoint bias in the law results in viewpoint-discriminatory application.

The ruling mocks the Government’s position that some of the examples shown of the PTO rejecting marks were “mistakes,” as well as the request to basically read the law entirely differently than it’s written.

How, then, can the Government claim that the ?immoral or scandalous? bar is viewpoint-neutral? The Government basically asks us to treat decisions like those described above as PTO examiners? mistakes. See Brief for Petitioner 46. Still more, the Government tells us to ignore how the Lanham Act?s language, on its face, disfavors some ideas. In urging that course, the Government does not dispute that the statutory language?and words used to define it?have just that effect. At oral argument, the Government conceded: ?[I]f you just looked at the words like ?shocking? and ?offensive? on their face and gave them their ordinary meanings[,] they could easily encompass material that was shocking [or offensive] because it expressed an outrageous point of view or a point of view that most members? of society reject. Tr. of Oral Arg. 6. But no matter, says the Government, because the statute is ?susceptible of? a limiting construction that would remove this viewpoint bias. Id., at 7 (arguing that the Court should ?attempt to construe [the] statute in a way that would render it constitutional?). The Government?s idea, abstractly phrased, is to narrow the statutory bar to ?marks that are offensive [or] shocking to a substantial segment of the public because of their mode of expression, independent of any views that they may express.? Id., at 11 (emphasis added); see Brief for Petitioner 27?28. More concretely, the Government explains that this reinterpretation would mostly restrict the PTO to refusing marks that are ?vulgar??meaning ?lewd,? ?sexually explicit or profane.? Id., at 27, 30. Such a reconfigured bar, the Government says, would not turn on viewpoint, and so we could uphold it.

But we cannot accept the Government?s proposal, because the statute says something markedly different. This Court, of course, may interpret ?ambiguous statutory language? to ?avoid serious constitutional doubts.?


Except, of course, with this court, very little is easy. There are a bunch of concurring opinions, with some dissenting in part. Justice Alito kicks it off with a short concurring opinion bravely talking up the principles of free speech, before then insisting that Congress could still write a law to block “FUCT” because he, personally seems to feel such a word is too vulgar for society or something. It’s… bizarre.

For the reasons explained in the opinion of the Court, the provision of the Lanham Act at issue in this case violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and cannot be fixed without rewriting the statute. Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society. But in many countries with constitutions or legal traditions that claim to protect freedom of speech, serious viewpoint discrimination is now tolerated, and such discrimination has become increasingly prevalent in this country. At a time when free speech is under attack, it is especially important for this Court to remain firm on the principle that the First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination. We reaffirm that principle today.

Our decision is not based on moral relativism but on the recognition that a law banning speech deemed by government officials to be ?immoral? or ?scandalous? can easily be exploited for illegitimate ends. Our decision does not prevent Congress from adopting a more carefully focused statute that precludes the registration of marks containing vulgar terms that play no real part in the expression of ideas. The particular mark in question in this case could be denied registration under such a statute. The term suggested by that mark is not needed to express any idea and, in fact, as commonly used today, generally signifies nothing except emotion and a severely limited vocabulary.The registration of such marks serves only to further coarsen our popular culture. But we are not legislators and cannot substitute a new statute for the one now in force.

I have a fair bit of difficulty figuring out how Alito’s argument in that latter paragraph could possibly be consistent with the 1st Amendment, but, hey, he’s the Supreme Court Justice, and I’m not. Justice Roberts takes a slightly similar position, saying that it’s fine to say the ban on “immoral” marks is unconstitutional, but surely “scandalous” is viewpoint neutral, because vulgarity. This, again, seems like a bizarre attempt at line drawing. Justice Breyer complains about the standard used in the majority ruling, calling it too rigid, and wants more of a balancing test (which, if I remember correctly, has mostly been rejected by the Court in 1st Amendment cases). Sotomayor, like Alito, worries that this will lead to a rush of vulgar and obscene trademarks:

The coming rush to register such trademarks?and the Government?s immediate powerlessness to say no?is eminently avoidable. Rather than read the relevant text as the majority does, it is equally possible to read that provision?s bar on the registration of ?scandalous? marks to address only obscenity, vulgarity, and profanity. Such a narrowing construction would save that duly enacted legislative text by rendering it a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction on speech that is permissible in the context of a beneficial governmental initiative like the trademark-registration system. I would apply that narrowing construction to the term ?scandalous? and accordingly reject petitioner Erik Brunetti?s facial challenge

Again, I have trouble seeing how this makes any sense. And, frankly, if there is a mad dash to register vulgar trademarks, well, that only matters if those marks are valued in commerce. If people want to buy vulgar t-shirts or whatnot, that’s kind of on them. It’s not Congress’ job to stop vulgar t-shirts, which should be fairly obvious from the 1st Amendment. At least the majority got it right.

Filed Under: , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Supreme Court Now Says That The Trademark Office Can't Reject 'Immoral Or Scandalous' Trademarks”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Thad (profile) says:

I have a fair bit of difficulty figuring out how Alito’s argument in that latter paragraph could possibly be consistent with the 1st Amendment, but, hey, he’s the Supreme Court Justice, and I’m not.

The court has ruled in the past that there are certain restrictions the government can apply to legal speech in particular contexts — for example, the FCC can fine broadcast TV and radio stations for the use of certain words at certain times of day. Alito’s argument is that, while the ban on "immoral or scandalous" trademarks is too broad, it would be possible for Congress to pass narrower restrictions on trademarks that conform to precedent.

I’m not endorsing this viewpoint, but it makes a certain amount of logical sense, in terms of maintaining consistency with established precedent.

If people want to buy vulgar t-shirts or whatnot, that’s kind of on them. It’s not Congress’ job to stop vulgar t-shirts, which should be fairly obvious from the 1st Amendment.

Strictly speaking, denying trademarks doesn’t stop people from putting vulgar words on T-shirts, it merely prevents them from obtaining a government monopoly on the use of said vulgarities.

Though I don’t think it’s Congress’s job to stop that, either.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Did not think that one through...

Strictly speaking, denying trademarks doesn’t stop people from putting vulgar words on T-shirts, it merely prevents them from obtaining a government monopoly on the use of said vulgarities.

Which, ironically enough, would mean that the government attempting to prevent vulgarity would instead result in even more of it, such that allowing trademarks like that would be a better way to reduce such content rather than preventing them.

hij (profile) says:

how do you express something that is not an idea?

"…vulgar terms that play no real part in the expression of ideas."

Fuck that noise. Apparently Justice Alito thinks it is okay for the government to decide which parts of a person’s speech matter in the idea they are expressing. His self professed method of taking a practical approach does not seem consistent with the idea that the courts should be in the business of editing out the minor details of a person’s speech as long as the original idea remains.

Linux is Norwegian for Unreliable Crap says:

Fires Up Crude Techdirt

And gives Congress cause to pass "legislation" popular with near everyone else, to simply list unacceptable combinations of characters and / or firm up agency ability to do so — as SC wrote.

Also, SC preens selves on extreme lawyering in "fixing" what was considered common sense for 243 years.

That’s all.

Linux is Norwegian for Unreliable Crap says:

Re: Fires Up Crude Techdirt

The facial viewpoint bias in the law results in viewpoint-discriminatory application.

As does Section 230 IF as you claim empowers some "persons" having First Amendment Right to be set up to control the speech of all others.

The SC here focuses on "viewpoint-discriminatory" as key point. Corporate notions of how sweeping Section 230 is can’t survive even surface view in light of actualities.

By the way, "immunity" which is gov’t-conferred can be as easily swept away.

Now hurry and re-write to your bias on today’s BIG revelations about Google’s "viewpoint-discriminatory" ongoing crimes. — Bet ya just ignore that, Google-boy. It’s JUICY.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Fires Up Crude Techdirt

"It helps a lot if you include a valid link"

It would. But, you promised a link to Google’s crimes, yet you only linked to an explanation of a technical term that doesn’t mention Google.

Is the fact that it’s a term you’ve heard on your scaremongering gossip sites enough for you to shit your pants nowadays?

Linux Is Normalising Ubiquitous eXascale says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Fires Up Crude Techdirt

Hey Paul.

I think I see the problem. Jhon Herrick Hamilton out_of_the_blue Hansmeier Spamford Prenda Wallace Smith was using the nym,

Linux is Norwegian for Useless Crap, (now hidden from view)

whereas my nym is

Linux Is Normalising Ubiquitous eXascale,

which is not only geographically accurate but also exploits lexicographical aptness. The wikipedia link was included for our "favourite" commenter as an example of how he could support his claims of Google’s crimes with more than an hyperbolic framework, as well as a pointer to the facts supporting the claim made by my nym.

The issue of confusion has been caused by visual similitude.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Fires Up Crude Techdirt

Ah, so he wasn’t trying to distract, he was just failing to back up his own words. Good to know.

Just a word of warning, though – nobody actually reads the word salads closely enough to notice that you’re just mocking him if you copy his style. Most just reach for the report button or skim to find the juiciest tidbits to mock 😉

Linux Is Normalising Ubiquitous eXascale says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Fires Up Crude Techdirt

As evidenced by the green ACs further up the thread.

Yes. At first it did seem like Jhon Boi was lashing out in his usual erudite manner, but it seems apparent that some of it came from non-Jhon Boi sources. C’est la vie.

Of course we won’t be holding our breaths waiting for him to supply a valid link or citation.

Dan (profile) says:

Re: Re: Fires Up Crude Techdirt

As does Section 230 IF as you claim empowers some "persons" having First Amendment Right to be set up to control the speech of all others.

Facebook doesn’t have the right (under the First or any other Amendment) to control the speech of anyone, anywhere else than on their platform. They do have an absolute right to control the speech of anyone, on any (or no) basis, on their platform.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Fires Up Crude Techdirt

"As does Section 230 IF as you claim empowers some "persons" having First Amendment Right to be set up to control the speech of all others."

Luckily that situation only exists in the minds of alt-right Nazis who are too lazy to exercise the speech that they can freely exercise anywhere other than the private property of people who don’t want them there.

"today’s BIG revelations about Google’s "viewpoint-discriminatory" ongoing crimes"

Do you have a source that doesn’t come from the "fiction for morons" section of the web?

Eat Poop Logistics & Trucking Inc. says:

Oh cool, can we trademark our telephone number now?

You’ve probably seen our trucks on the road.

They’re the ones driving too quickly for conditions and cutting other motorists off.

They’re also distinctive for the "don’t like my driving?" stickers on the back. We’d wanted to trademark those for years, but could not.

Meanwhile, some pizza joint in Toronto trademarked 967-1111®

Glad to see that this legal gap has been remedied, so that we can look forward to 1-800-EAT-POOP® (registered, US PTO) coming soon to a highway near you!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Older Stuff
10:43 California Governor Signs Bill Forbidding The Use Of Rap Lyrics As Criminal Evidence (12)
10:45 The Onion Files Hilarious Amicus Brief In An Important Case, And Actually Makes A Key Point In The Best Way Possible (23)
09:31 There Are Real Threats To Free Speech Everywhere. Cancel Culture Is Far Down The List (338)
10:44 Germany's Government Continues To Lock People Up For Being Extremely Online (18)
09:35 Saudi Prosecutors Are Targeting A US Citizen For Tweets Criticizing The Government (18)
13:36 Finally, Some Good News: Federal Anti-SLAPP Law Introduced (9)
16:43 5th Circuit Rewrites A Century Of 1st Amendment Law To Argue Internet Companies Have No Right To Moderate (625)
12:03 Court To Public University: Yeah, It's A 1st Amendment Problem When You Delete Comments You Don't Like (16)
10:46 Judge Blocks 'No Recording Cops Within 8 Feet' Law Even Arizona Cops Don't Want To Defend (6)
09:31 Virginia Court Rejects Prior Restraint, Says Old Law Used In Attempt To Ban Books Is Unconstitutional (18)
12:20 Censorship Starts At Home: Turkish Gov't Controls The Press, Repeatedly Claims It Does Not Control The Press (6)
05:35 Wannabe Censor Ron DeSantis Is Now 0 For 2 With His Censorship Bills: Court Throws Out His 'Stop WOKE Act' As Unconstitutional (34)
09:38 Elon Musk's Legal Filings Against Twitter Show How Little He Actually Cares About Free Speech (35)
12:07 Virginia Politicians Are Suing Books They Don't Like (65)
09:21 Appeals Court Corrects Its Previous Error, Holds That Recording Cops Is A Clearly Established Right (8)
15:27 Federal Court Allows Protesters' First Amendment Suit Against Violent Boston Cops To Continue (26)
19:39 Student Expelled Over Off-Campus Nazi Joke Can Continue To Sue The School, Says Appeals Court (205)
10:42 Twitter Sues Indian Government Over Orders To Block Content (3)
10:47 Policymakers Need To Realize How Any Internet Regulation Will Impact Speech (135)
10:44 More Than Two Thirds Of States Are Pushing Highly Controversial (And Likely Unconstitutional) Bills To Moderate Speech Online (50)
13:38 Australia's Upside Down Internet Liability Policy Shows How Section 230 Enables More Free Speech (87)
09:28 The Moral Panic Is Spreading: Think Tank Proposes Banning Teens From Social Media; Texas Rep Promises To Intro Bill (88)
12:15 Federal Agent Stupidly Threatens Twitter User With Arrest Over Protected First Amendment Expression (57)
09:31 How The Dobbs Decision Will Lead To Attacks On Free Speech; Or, Why Democrats Need To Stop Undermining Free Speech (52)
10:46 Devin Nunes Loses Yet Another SLAPP Suit, This Time In California (21)
09:28 Philippines Orders Critical News Organization, Rappler, Shut Down; Just As Rappler's Founder Argues Against Free Speech (11)
09:19 Clarence Thomas REALLY Wants To Make It Easier For The Powerful To Sue People For Criticizing Them (32)
15:39 Twitter Successfully Quashes Sketchy Copyright Subpoena Over Billionaire's Critic On Twitter (237)
12:14 Giant Private Prison Company Goes To Court To Try To Get Lawyer To Stop Tweeting About Them (15)
10:48 UK Approves Extradition Of Julian Assange, Allowing The US Government To Continue Criminalizing Journalism (46)
More arrow