Allahabad High Court : Deceased Farmer’s Odd Jobs Don’t Bar Family from Scheme Benefits  ||  Secured Creditors' Dues Take Priority Over Govt Claims: Allahabad HC on SARFAESI & RDB Acts  ||  Daughter Can’t Claim Mitakshara Father’s Property if He Died Pre-1956 & Son Survives: HC  ||  Gujarat High Court: Sessions Court Can’t Suspend Sentence Just to Allow Revision Filing  ||  Delhi High Court: Non-Combat Security Roles Crucial; Minor Lapse Risks National Safety  ||  Punjab & Haryana HC: Allegation of Harassment Alone Insufficient to Prove Abetment to Suicide  ||  Orissa HC: Directors Liable under S.138 NI Act Despite Company’s Insolvency  ||  Bombay HC: GST Return Details of Company Exempt from Disclosure under RTI Act  ||  Chhattisgarh HC: Timely Appointment of Electronic Evidence Examiners Vital in Cyber Crime Probes  ||  Bombay HC: GST Return Details of Company Exempt from Disclosure under RTI Act    

In Re Simon Shiao Tam - (22 Dec 2015)

Hurtful or not, free speech is free

Intellectual Property Rights

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Section 2(a) of the Lanham (Trademark) Act, 15 U.S.C. Section 1052, preventing the US Patent and Trademark Office from registering disparaging marks, unconstitutional. The case had arisen from the US Trademark Office refusing to register Simon Shao Tam’s musical band, ‘The Slants’ for being a derogatory reference to Asians. The Court opined that the government could not refuse registration of disparaging marks simply because it disapproved of the message contained in the marks: it would amount to viewpoint discrimination, making it a penalty on private speech. Such was contrary to the First Amendment, United States Constitution. The Court noted that regardless hurtfulness of the speech, and the harm it may cause oft-stigmatized communities, it was protected under the First Amendment.

Tags : TRADE MARK   FREE SPEECH   DISPARAGING   HURTFUL  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved