Introduction
On September 29, the Supreme Court agreed to take into account the violation of the Constitutional rights to free speech based on the provisions of the Lanham Act, which permits the USPTO to turn down registering the disparaging trademarks. This case was known as Lee v. Tam (Docket No. 15-1293). Even though trademark cases are quite unusual to be addressed by the United States Supreme Court, this was an exceptional case. Using business analysis of this case, this work analyses the case and/or the broader concept of the essence of trademark law in business.
Facts of the Case
Matal V. Tam originated in 2011 where there was a trademark appeal of the brand known as “The Slants." Simon Tam was the lead singer of the band and requested that the band's name be trademarked using the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). From the background evidence presented in the last Supreme Court submission, Tam and the band “chose this moniker in order to reclaim the term and drain its denigrating force as a derogatory term for Asian persons” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2017, p. 1). However, the USPTO did not consider the appeal after establishing that the subject would potentially have pejorative implications on the people of Asian origins. The office implicated the case of the Disagreement Clause about the Lanham Act of 1946. In this scenario, the Lanham Act forbade the trademarks with any immoral or deceptive issue or a condition that could disparage or falsely imply a link with an individual or persons, either alive or dead, organizations, national symbols, beliefs, or shame. For this reason, Tam had to appeal the trademark to a board that consists of the office members again, and his submissions were turned down. After conducting a second denial, judges of the Court of Appeals of the United States after a Federal Circuit re-examined the case whereby they affirmed that the trademark officials acted within their rights by denying the trademark application based on the Disparagement Clause since it “engages in viewpoint-based discrimination” and was unconstitutional (Supreme Court of The United States, 2017, p. 7). However, the appellate court re-examined the case and established that USPTO acted incorrectly in turning down the trademark application. Concisely, the appellate court affirmed that the Disparagement had actually violated the First Amendment. As a result, an appeal was made to the Supreme Court asking for a resolution by Joseph Matal, the director of USPTO.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Case’s Argument
On January 18, 2017, the Matal v. Tam was disputed. After various questions pit under hot examination, the most vital question debated throughout was about the action of the Disparagement Clause and its effects on the First Amendment of the Constitution of the U.S. The violation of the First Amendment is a disregard of the freedom of speech provided by the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, they were other questions raised to the Supreme Court that needed an opinion. The primary one was on the implication of trademark on free speech. The other question was whether the government had the right to deny trademarks from registering based on the idea of disparaging to certain people or groups of persons. Every side had various arguments, and the government had three primary arguments. Mainly, the government implied that the trademark had to be regarded as the government speech and not the private one. Since the government was strict on the degree of Free Speech rules and trademarks that contradicted the issued remarks of the government, the trademarks were not guaranteed similar Free Speech phases as the private ones (Farley & Tushnet, 2016). The next argument made by the government was that trademarks should be regarded as government subsidies. They pointed out that being a government subsidy, trademarks should not be categorized as private entities and should follow strict speech regulations. Lastly, the government thought it would establish the case as the best test for disparagement clauses based on the plan of the government doctrine. Tam responded by arguing against the three positions postulated by the government. Tam asserted that trademarks were private and ought to have been granted the First Amendment free Speech advantages. Tam also indicated that USPTO was unconstitutional because of its disparaging policy, and together with the Circuit Court, it resulted in the discrimination of people’s viewpoints.
Court’s Decision
A verdict was delivered on June 19, 2017, on the Matal v. Tam case. The Supreme Court unanimously made a decision of 8-0 opinion, where it agreed that turning down the Ram trademark request was in violation of the Free Speech Clause outlined in the First Amendment. The rejection of the trademark was against the First Amendment principle, which posits that “Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2017, p. 1). Despite all these trademarks, private ideas exist and are hence protected within the First Amendment. The Supreme Court managed to counter these arguments, which meant to eliminate the First Amendment protection about the trademarks. In the beginning, the establishment of the trade was a form of a private speech against governmental speech. Consequently, the trademarks were given the Free Speech regulations against the strict speech of the government. The declaration stated that the “federal law does not create trademarks” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2017, p.2). Additionally, it was asserted that the "First Amendment forbids the government's regulation of speech in ways that favor some viewpoints or ideas at the expense of others” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2017, p. 13). Furthermore, the court also indicated that trademarks did not comprise what was called the "government subsidy." A trademark is not an expression of the message of any government. Therefore, the government should not offer treasured advantages to any applicant, as the case of a regular subsidy. Trademarks should not be regarded as derivative government prospects to convey a message.
Implications
Even though the Matal v. Tam ruling was largely accepted by many advocates supporting the Free Speech calls, the ruling also supported or was a determinant of other outcomes. For instance, there was a ruling made in favour of Tam, where the USPTO received high cases of applications with words and images of racism and Narcissism (Farley & Tushnet, 2016). The case opened the door for various groups, including the minorities, who found a new basis to kick-start their lives. Furthermore, it ensured that groups had an opportunity to secure offensive trademarks, hoping that others will not use them. However, not every appeal regarding their trademarks is formed with honorable causes. Various trademark applicants may wish to express genuine discrimination. Withstanding the intent, there is a major problem related to accepting the disparaging ideas, and the perception created is a slippery slope. Additionally, the Matal v. tam decision had a profound effect on Redskins of Washington, who had been caught in the court process fighting to ensure that their trademark renewal was done. From the decision, the government disregarded the fight of the Redskins. Even though many people believed that the concept of disparaged Native Americans, it was established that similar rules applying to the Matal v. Tam would not be constitutional for the Trademark office to make a prejudiced ruling on it (Farley & Tushnet, 2016). Concisely, free speech in the First Amendment was violated. In essence, the decisions are far-reaching to various firms which have names and images that could be culpable and culturally insensitive. Furthermore, even though the ruling was about the explicit trademarks, there will have other implications on decisions of other forms of speech. Simon Tam reacted to the intriguing case of redskins not being required to alter the name. Simon Tam indicated that he wished the Redskins would change their name voluntarily. Tam indicated that it does not show that it is the correct thing because of the permissibility of anything. Tam thought that it is their social responsibility. This advice is crucial to organizations and the individuals involved in the whole marketing process or public relations. Even though Matal v. Tam offered a better understanding of freedom of speech, it should not be understood to mean that freedom of speech has no repercussions. Using controversial words or images could bring up ethical or financial implications even though it could be technically acceptable.
Conclusion
Even though there are laws governing speech, there are various factors to consider with regards to the selection of an image or any word. Finally, the Supreme Court conferred that “speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate’” (Supreme Court of The United States, 2017, p. 25). There will also be long-term effects for this, not only in the courtrooms but also in businesses and the media.
References
Farley, Christine Haight, and Tushnet, Rebecca, Supreme Court Amicus Brief of Law Professors in Support of Petitioner, Lee v. Tam, No. 15-1293 (Filed November 16,) (November 16, 2016). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2906286 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2906286 Matal v. Tam. (2016). Oyez. from www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1293 Supreme Court of The United States. (2017). Matal, Interim Director, United States Patent and hhafhTrademark Office v. Tam June 19. Supremecourt.gov
