Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.
I agree with it but they probably left room for what's considered obscene.
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.
What about kill all whiteys?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?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.
Why do you presume that YT doesnt deserve it?What about kill all whiteys?
Maybe that family that got forced to change their childs name could use that for a reason to be brought back up?
You mean I cant name my child 'Wattafookusay Muthafukah'?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?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?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.
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?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.
Pay attention.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?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.
