SC says not allowing Offensive Trademarks is unconstitutional

[martybegan]

A win for the 1st amendment, an Asian Band called "The Slants", and probably for the Washington Redskins.

Supreme Court upholds offensive trademarks as form of free speech

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal trademarks can be registered in most cases even if they are considered derogatory.

The decision was a victory for an Asian American dance rock band dubbed The Slants -- and, in all likelihood, for the Washington Redskins, whose trademarks were cancelled in 2014 following complaints from Native Americans.

The justices did leave a little wiggle room, but not much.

While defending the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection, the justices did not remove all discretion from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But they raised the bar for trademark denials so that names deemed to be offensive but not hateful can survive.

 

[Iceweasel]

I agree with it but they probably left room for what's considered obscene.

 

[martybegan]

I agree with it but they probably left room for what's considered obscene.

I would think it would be limited to inciting or hateful words as well, i.e. You couldn't name your band "Kill all *******" and get a trademark for it.

 

[Montrovant]

A win for the 1st amendment, an Asian Band called "The Slants", and probably for the Washington Redskins.

Supreme Court upholds offensive trademarks as form of free speech

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that federal trademarks can be registered in most cases even if they are considered derogatory.

The decision was a victory for an Asian American dance rock band dubbed The Slants -- and, in all likelihood, for the Washington Redskins, whose trademarks were cancelled in 2014 following complaints from Native Americans.

The justices did leave a little wiggle room, but not much.

While defending the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection, the justices did not remove all discretion from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But they raised the bar for trademark denials so that names deemed to be offensive but not hateful can survive.

This never should have needed to go to the USSC. Preventing the band from trademarking their name because it is offensive sounds ridiculous; protecting offensive speech is one of the main purposes of the 1st amendment.

I'm glad the high court ruled this way, and did so unanimously.

 

[Iceweasel]

I agree with it but they probably left room for what's considered obscene.

I would think it would be limited to inciting or hateful words as well, i.e. You couldn't name your band "Kill all *******" and get a trademark for it.

What about kill all whiteys?

 

[martybegan]

I agree with it but they probably left room for what's considered obscene.

I would think it would be limited to inciting or hateful words as well, i.e. You couldn't name your band "Kill all *******" and get a trademark for it.

What about kill all whiteys?

In an ideal world it would be unacceptable as well, but we know we are not in an ideal world.

 

[Blackrook]

The Supreme Court upheld the common sense notion that the government can't censor speech. This should never have come up in the first place.

 

[TNHarley]

It should have never went to them in the first place. But it did, and the ruling seems good.

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe that family that got forced to change their childs name could use that for a reason to be brought back up?

 

[Scamp]

Does the Confederate Battle Flag fit into this ruling?

 

[Blackrook]

Washington Redskins should now have a cause of action against the federal government for violation of its trademark, with damages no doubt in the billions by now.

 

[JimBowie1958]

What about kill all whiteys?

Why do you presume that YT doesnt deserve it?

 

[Montrovant]

Maybe that family that got forced to change their childs name could use that for a reason to be brought back up?

I'm not sure if there would be any direct connection, as this case was about trademarks, a very different issue than naming a child.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm not sure if there would be any direct connection, as this case was about trademarks, a very different issue than naming a child.

You mean I cant name my child 'Wattafookusay Muthafukah'?

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe that family that got forced to change their childs name could use that for a reason to be brought back up?

I'm not sure if there would be any direct connection, as this case was about trademarks, a very different issue than naming a child.

You don't think the premise would be similar?

 

[Montrovant]

Maybe that family that got forced to change their childs name could use that for a reason to be brought back up?

I'm not sure if there would be any direct connection, as this case was about trademarks, a very different issue than naming a child.

You don't think the premise would be similar?

No, not especially. This case seemed to be about an individual's right to free speech. Naming a child, on the other hand, may not fall under the umbrella of free speech protection at all. I'm not entirely sure of the precedents for constitutional protection of parental rights; I don't think they are nearly as clear as those for individual freedom of speech.

This case was also about a denial of service, the granting of a trademark. That would not apply in a case about naming children.

It's possible that a child naming case could be decided based solely, or mostly, on the right to free speech of the parents. From the little I've read about the subject, I think it might well be decided more based on the rights and protection of the child.

EDIT: Just to be clear, I have no particular legal education, my opinion is entirely from a layman's perspective. I am in no way claiming expertise on the subject and certainly don't want to imply that I have any special credibility about the subject. This is just my take from a small amount of reading.

 

[Blackrook]

Free speech is free speech, and it doesn't have to pass some moral or ethical test, it's still protected.

There are very few exceptions, like child pornography, and the restriction there is based on the fact that actual children are being used in pornographic pictures. Simulated child pornography, using cartoon or CGI characters is, or should still be, protected.

The whole concept that the government should, or has the power to, protect unwilling listeners from so-called "hate speech" has no place in First Amendment jurisprudence.

 

[blackhawk]

If you find a name offensive don't buy the product no matter if it's going to see a song and dance group a sports team whatever choosing not to spend your money on it is the best option to try and get them to make a change.

 

[blastoff]

Washington Redskins should now have a cause of action against the federal government for violation of its trademark, with damages no doubt in the billions by now.

Huh? What violation of the Redskins trademark? Last I knew the 'skins were still the 'skins and some clowns were complaining about it. Did I miss a memo?

 

[Blackrook]

Washington Redskins should now have a cause of action against the federal government for violation of its trademark, with damages no doubt in the billions by now.

Huh? What violation of the Redskins trademark? Last I knew the 'skins were still the 'skins and some clowns were complaining about it. Did I miss a memo?

Pay attention.

Washington Redskins lose trademark protection; now what happens? | FOX Sports