Can the USPTO Still Reject “Disparaging” Trademarks? Stay tuned
Nobody knows, and that’s why the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) just filed a petition asking Supreme Court to settle its turf battle with the Federal Circuit Court.
Ancient History: No Disparaging Trademarks
From WWII until March of this year, the USPTO routinely refused to issue trademarks that it considered to be disparaging under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. So it wasn’t big news in 2011 when the USPTO summarily rejected Simon Shiao-Tam’s trademark registration for his rock band, “The Slants.” Mr. Tam appealed the USPTO’s decision to the Federal Circuit, which initially upheld the USPTO’s decision, but later agreed to rehear the appeal en banc.
Quantum Leap: First Amendment Trumps Lanham Act’s Prohibition of Disparaging Trademarks
But, as we previously reported, it was huge news last December when the Federal Circuit reversed its earlier opinion and the USPTO’s decision and held that Section 2(a) violated the First Amendment, effectively stripping the USPTO of its power to deny trademarks that it deemed disparaging. Presumably the court’s decision also strikes down Section 2(a)’s prohibition of marks that are immoral or scandalous.
Early last month, the USPTO reacted to the court’s decision, issuing guidelines that trademark applications with Section 2(a) issues would be held in limbo “while the constitutionality of these provisions remains in question…” Shortly thereafter, Mr. Tam filed a writ of mandamus asking the Federal Circuit to force the USPTO to register The Slants trademark.
Breaking News: The Suspense was Killing the USPTO
The Federal Circuit denied the writ, but today the USPTO petitioned the Supreme Court to resolve:
Whether the disparagement provision in 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Usually issues percolate up slowly over the course of years before they reach the Supreme Court, but with the Federal Circuit insisting that Section 2(a) is unconstitutional and the USPTO refusing to cede its authority to reject disparaging trademarks there’s really no place else to take the issue. And until the issue is ultimately resolved, trademarks that the USPTO considers disparaging will continue to sit in limbo. Four of the justices will need to vote to hear the USPTO’s petition and, absent the extremely rare issuance of an extraordinary writ (allowing accelerated briefing and oral argument), even if the Supreme Court grants certiorari the matter won’t be decided for some time.