NCLAT: IRP Has Authority to Take Possession of Assets Owned by Corporate Debtor  ||  NCLAT: NCLT Can Direct Forwarding a Copy of its Order to Relevant Statutory Authorities  ||  Delhi HC: Centre to Expedite Process of Accessibility Features in OTT platforms for PwDs  ||  Delhi HC: Once Worker Provides Testimony Under Oath ‘Burden of Proof’ Shifts on Employer  ||  SC: There Cannot be Discrimination in Matter of Payment of Pension to Retired Judges  ||  SC: India is Not a Dharamshala that Can Entertain Foreign Nationals from All Over  ||  SC: Can Quash Domestic Violence Act Complaints Under Section 482 of CrPC  ||  Supreme Court: Can’t Use Statement of One Accused against Another  ||  SC: Inclusion of Name in Draft NRC Cannot Annul Foreigners Tribunal’s Declaration as Non-Citizen  ||  Supreme Court: Minimum Practice of 3 Years Mandatory to Enter Judicial Service    

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