Bombay HC: Clarifies Procedure for Executing Foreign Decrees  ||  Supreme Court: Bureaucratic Delay No Excuse  ||  Supreme Court Grants Full Disability Pension Arrears to Veterans  ||  Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved