Delhi HC: MYAS Not Bound to ‘Rubber-Stamp’ International Federation Choices  ||  AP HC: Fulfilling Rehabilitation Promises to Displaced is State’s Constitutional Obligation  ||  SC: Career Progression to Higher Echelons of Judiciary is Neither a Matter of Right Nor Entitlement  ||  Provisions of Tribunal Reforms Act 2022 Struck Down as Unconstitutional  ||  Madras HC: Repeated Remand Orders U/S 37 A&C Act are Unworkable Without Reversing Merits  ||  Delhi High Court: Unproven Immoral Conduct of a Parent Cannot Influence Child Custody Decisions  ||  Delhi High Court: Counsel Cannot Treat Passovers or Adjournments as an Automatic Right  ||  Delhi HC: Landlord’s Rent Control Act Rights Cannot be Waived by Contract With Tenant  ||  Bom HC: Arbitrator Who Halts Proceedings over Unpaid Revised Fees Effectively Withdraws From Office  ||  SC Holds That if Some Offences Are Quashed On Compromise, The FIR Cannot Continue For Others    

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