NCLAT: Can’t Dismiss Restoration App. if Filed in 30 Days from Date of Dismissal of Original App.  ||  Delhi HC: Communication between Parties through Whatsapp Constitute Valid Agreement  ||  Delhi HC Seeks Response from Govt. Over Penalties on Petrol Pumps Supplying Fuel to Old Vehicles  ||  Centre Notifies "Unified Waqf Management, Empowerment, Efficiency and Development Rules, 2025"  ||  Del. HC: Can’t Reject TM Owner’s Claim Merely because Defendant Could have Sought Removal of Mark  ||  Bombay HC: Cannot Treat Sole Director of OPC, Parallelly with Separate Legal Entity  ||  Delhi HC: Can Apply 'Family of Marks' Concept to Injunct Specific Marks  ||  HP HC: Can’t Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Mere Irregularity  ||  Cal. HC: Order by HC Bench Not Conferred With Determination by Roster is Void  ||  Calcutta HC: Purchase Order Including Arbitration Agreement to Prevail Over Tax Invoice Lacking it    

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