* apologies / indulgences for repeating a post from OF -- sufficiently non-sport to be included here for anyone not on OF *
Today, SCOTUS issued the Tam decision (better known as one individual member of the Asian-American rock band "The Slants"), which wound its way through the federal court system as a tussle between the band (and their attempt to register the trademark "THE SLANTS" for the band name) and the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) and its refusal to register the trademark because of the allegedly disparaging nature of the term.
As I expected (with a slight-tinge of expecting the unexpected with the high court), I thought any SCOTUS decision would uphold the Federal Circuit's decision/conclusion that the statutory provision that allows the PTO to reject trademark applications based on disparagement is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. In fact, SCOTUS surprised in one aspect: the decision was 8-0 (Gorsuch abstained from participating).
Where this dovetails with the Washington Redskins trademark row with the USPTO (and Complainant-Blackhorse) is that the statutory section used in the Tam (Slants) matter is the same statutory section used to "cancel" the six Washington Redskins marks. The now-declared unconstitutional provision should result in a near-immediate petition by the NFL franchise to have the PTO remove its rejections and cancellations of the marks, and remove all further encumbrances on the six marks in question.
For additional background (and my thoughts), consider:
Wash. Redskins pt. 1
Wash. Redskins pt. 2
The Slants
Today, SCOTUS issued the Tam decision (better known as one individual member of the Asian-American rock band "The Slants"), which wound its way through the federal court system as a tussle between the band (and their attempt to register the trademark "THE SLANTS" for the band name) and the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) and its refusal to register the trademark because of the allegedly disparaging nature of the term.
As I expected (with a slight-tinge of expecting the unexpected with the high court), I thought any SCOTUS decision would uphold the Federal Circuit's decision/conclusion that the statutory provision that allows the PTO to reject trademark applications based on disparagement is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. In fact, SCOTUS surprised in one aspect: the decision was 8-0 (Gorsuch abstained from participating).
Where this dovetails with the Washington Redskins trademark row with the USPTO (and Complainant-Blackhorse) is that the statutory section used in the Tam (Slants) matter is the same statutory section used to "cancel" the six Washington Redskins marks. The now-declared unconstitutional provision should result in a near-immediate petition by the NFL franchise to have the PTO remove its rejections and cancellations of the marks, and remove all further encumbrances on the six marks in question.
For additional background (and my thoughts), consider:
Wash. Redskins pt. 1
Wash. Redskins pt. 2
The Slants