110:, a name for a lesbian motorcycle club, that was registered after a protracted legal battle. However, when the same organization applied for a trademark registration on their logo, it was once again rejected under the disparagement provision. Their second application was only granted after Matal v. Tam. Several analyses of the disparagement provision found that many applicants who were using a reappropriated and self-disparaging terms that could otherwise be neutral were rejected primarily because of the connection to the identity of the applicant. This was at issue in Tam, whose application for the term "slant" was denied precisely because he was a member of an all-Asian American band. In other words, Tam's ethnic identity provided the "context" of the mark in how it would appear in the marketplace - and therefore, would be connected with Asian Americans.
161:(litigant in Matal v. Tam), argued that the disparagement provision was primarily used against communities of color, women, and the LGBTQ, since those groups were more likely to be engaged in reappropriation and therefore targets under the law. He writes, "Asking already burdened and under-resourced communities to appeal using a long, expensive process that does not allow the complexities of identity politics to be navigated properly is regressive and inequitable in nature. When one considers the effect on the marginalized, this places an undue burden on the applicant by an effort, which has never produced a positive result at the TTAB level."
683:
105:
Registration of terms that are historically considered disparaging has been allowed in some circumstances. Self-disparaging trademarks have been allowed where the applicant has shown that the mark as-used is not considered by the relevant group to be disparaging. One example of a registered mark with
149:
However, because the Lanham Act did not define "disparage", decisions on what constituted as disparaging were often inconsistent. The TTAB itself called the guidelines "somewhat vague" and "highly subjective". Similarly, the
Supreme Court stated that "If the federal registration of a trademark makes
80:
According to
Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure §1203.03(b)(i), “If that meaning is found to refer to identifiable persons, institutions, beliefs or national symbols,” the examiner moves to the second step, asking “whether that meaning may be disparaging to a substantial composite of the
153:
In addition, legal scholars have also pointed out that determinations under the disparagement provision were content based, highly subjective, and inconsistent and vary with time, context, and tribunal. Megan
Carpenter and Kathryn Murphy wrote, "Whether a mark is considered "scandalous" or
101:
As noted below, this process was highly subjective and inconsistent. Rather than using standard dictionaries, the
Trademark Office often relied upon questionable sources such as Urban Dictionary, a wiki-joke website.
712:
164:
Others have argued that the disparagement provision was a form of restriction on freedom of speech. Ultimately, the disparagement provision was struck down on those very constitutional grounds.
697:
817:
154:"disparaging" can often change drastically given the context of the mark." Numerous examples include registrations and rejections for identical terms such as dyke, twatty, and queer.
1010:
886:
727:
69:
The PTO used a two-step test to determine whether the likely meaning of a mark used in connection with goods and services is disparaging to a group of people:
393:
334:
1000:
418:
1005:
717:
44:
47:(PTO) to cancel a trademark registration that "may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or
990:
126:
to parties who claim they may be injured by a mark. Examples of trademarks that were refused or cancelled for disparagement include a depiction of
559:
511:
1082:
1020:
1067:
1167:
1146:
758:
995:
209:
150:
the mark government speech, the
Federal Government is babbling prodigiously and incoherently...it is expressing contradictory views."
52:
632:
612:
40:
296:
1015:
901:
297:"Self-Disparaging Trademarks and Social Change: Factoring the Reappropriation of Slurs into Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act"
1072:
793:
637:
881:
1077:
1062:
1036:
798:
602:
552:
243:
1141:
911:
627:
360:
743:
582:
808:
788:
419:"TTAB - Trademark Trial and Appeal Board - *1 IN RE IN OVER OUR HEADS, INC. Serial No. 755,278 August 28, 1990"
442:
267:
896:
763:
1136:
1123:
1108:
840:
778:
753:
748:
622:
545:
773:
443:"Babbling Prodigiously and Incoherently – Lanham Act Disparagement Clause Ruled Unconsitutional [
783:
657:
178:
939:
871:
825:
768:
722:
617:
158:
492:
Tam, Simon (2018). "First
Amendment, Trademarks, and the Slants: Our Journey to the Supreme Court".
1041:
876:
642:
471:"Calling Bullshit on the Lanham Act: The 2 (a) Bar for Immoral, Scandalous, and Disparaging Marks"
1103:
1098:
924:
861:
587:
183:
157:
Some critics have also raised the issue of equity and accessibility. In his law review article,
919:
592:
368:
139:
73:
Would the mark be understood, in its context, as referring to an identifiable group of people?
1046:
929:
702:
1118:
1113:
944:
934:
707:
667:
173:
48:
512:"Supreme Court says disparagement clause violates the First Amendment Free Speech Clause"
76:
May that reference be perceived as disparaging to a substantial composite of that group?
866:
662:
647:
607:
127:
123:
107:
311:
1161:
30:
830:
189:
143:
57:
213:
470:
835:
597:
891:
119:
372:
672:
568:
135:
33:
39:, was a statutory cause of action which permitted a party to petition the
845:
84:
Whether a mark involves an identifiable group involves consideration of:
20:
394:"Asian-American Group The Slants Head to Supreme Court Over Band Name"
965:
131:
960:
970:
537:
541:
55:
struck down the disparagement provision as unconstitutional in
36:
138:
brand name, and an image consisting of a large "X" over the
91:
The relationship of the term and other elements of the mark;
51:, or bring them into contempt or disrepute". In 2017, the
361:"Opinion | The Slants on the Power of Repurposing a Slur"
335:"DYKES ON BIKES No Longer Idling After Matal v. Tam"
94:
The type of product upon which the mark appears; and
1091:
1055:
1029:
983:
953:
910:
854:
816:
807:
736:
690:
575:
469:Carpenter, Megan; Murphy, Kathryn (2010-01-01).
464:
462:
728:Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy
553:
8:
97:How the mark will appear in the marketplace.
268:"Urban Dictionary: The New Expert Witness?"
813:
560:
546:
538:
19:For disparagement in a general sense, see
516:IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Patent Law
494:Buffalo Intellectual Property Law Journal
114:Criticism of the Disparagement Provision
290:
288:
233:, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1705 (TTAB 1999).
202:
226:
224:
222:
88:The dictionary definition of the term;
7:
130:for beachwear, use of the name of a
996:International Trademark Association
475:University of Louisville Law Review
14:
272:Columbia Undergraduate Law Review
681:
244:"Guides, Manuals, and Resources"
134:group that forbids smoking as a
41:Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
1016:Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt
902:Protected designation of origin
1:
1047:Unregistered trademark symbol
882:Electronic registration marks
118:The TTAB has interpreted the
392:Kreps, Daniel (2017-01-10).
1168:United States trademark law
1037:Registered trademark symbol
231:Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.
106:a self-disparaging term is
45:Patent and Trademark Office
1184:
628:Initial interest confusion
18:
1132:
679:
359:Tam, Simon (2017-06-23).
500:– via Hein Online.
417:gphillips (2016-11-03).
897:Geographical indication
142:national symbol of the
1137:Category:Trademark law
1124:World Trademark Review
1109:Trademark infringement
841:Unregistered trademark
623:Functionality doctrine
447:] – Patent Arcade"
872:Collective trademarks
658:Reputation parasitism
613:Coexistence agreement
310:: 338, archived from
179:Term of disparagement
877:Defensive trademarks
826:Registered trademark
723:Community Trade Mark
673:Well-known trademark
618:Confusing similarity
295:Anten, Todd (2006),
1083:Washington Redskins
1042:Service mark symbol
925:Hologram trademarks
862:Certification marks
643:Secondary liability
633:Good faith doctrine
304:Columbia Law Review
81:referenced group.”
1104:Trademark examiner
1099:Trademark attorney
365:The New York Times
184:Trademark dilution
1155:
1154:
1147:WP:MOS/Trademarks
979:
978:
930:Motion trademarks
920:Colour trademarks
593:Generic trademark
140:hammer and sickle
1175:
945:Sound trademarks
940:Shape trademarks
935:Scent trademarks
912:Non-conventional
814:
718:Singapore Treaty
703:Madrid Agreement
698:Paris Convention
685:
684:
562:
555:
548:
539:
527:
526:
524:
523:
508:
502:
501:
489:
483:
482:
466:
457:
456:
454:
453:
439:
433:
432:
430:
429:
414:
408:
407:
405:
404:
389:
383:
382:
380:
379:
356:
350:
349:
347:
346:
331:
325:
324:
323:
322:
316:
301:
292:
283:
282:
280:
279:
264:
258:
257:
255:
254:
240:
234:
228:
217:
207:
49:national symbols
1183:
1182:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1151:
1128:
1119:Trademark troll
1114:Trademark share
1087:
1051:
1025:
975:
949:
906:
867:Chartered marks
850:
803:
732:
708:Madrid Protocol
686:
682:
677:
668:Parallel import
583:Distinctiveness
571:
566:
536:
531:
530:
521:
519:
510:
509:
505:
491:
490:
486:
468:
467:
460:
451:
449:
441:
440:
436:
427:
425:
423:www.ipmall.info
416:
415:
411:
402:
400:
391:
390:
386:
377:
375:
358:
357:
353:
344:
342:
333:
332:
328:
320:
318:
314:
299:
294:
293:
286:
277:
275:
266:
265:
261:
252:
250:
242:
241:
237:
229:
220:
208:
204:
199:
174:Reappropriation
170:
116:
67:
24:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1181:
1179:
1171:
1170:
1160:
1159:
1153:
1152:
1150:
1149:
1144:
1139:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1127:
1126:
1121:
1116:
1111:
1106:
1101:
1095:
1093:
1089:
1088:
1086:
1085:
1080:
1075:
1070:
1068:Debian–Mozilla
1065:
1059:
1057:
1053:
1052:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1039:
1033:
1031:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1023:
1018:
1013:
1008:
1003:
998:
993:
987:
985:
981:
980:
977:
976:
974:
973:
968:
963:
957:
955:
951:
950:
948:
947:
942:
937:
932:
927:
922:
916:
914:
908:
907:
905:
904:
899:
894:
889:
887:Font trademark
884:
879:
874:
869:
864:
858:
856:
852:
851:
849:
848:
843:
838:
833:
828:
822:
820:
811:
805:
804:
802:
801:
796:
794:United Kingdom
791:
786:
781:
776:
771:
766:
761:
759:European Union
756:
751:
746:
740:
738:
734:
733:
731:
730:
725:
720:
715:
710:
705:
700:
694:
692:
688:
687:
680:
678:
676:
675:
670:
665:
663:Cybersquatting
660:
655:
650:
648:Nominative use
645:
640:
635:
630:
625:
620:
615:
610:
608:Priority right
605:
603:Concurrent use
600:
595:
590:
585:
579:
577:
573:
572:
567:
565:
564:
557:
550:
542:
535:
534:External links
532:
529:
528:
503:
484:
458:
434:
409:
384:
351:
326:
284:
259:
235:
218:
210:15 U.S.C.
201:
200:
198:
195:
194:
193:
186:
181:
176:
169:
166:
122:to give broad
115:
112:
108:Dykes on Bikes
99:
98:
95:
92:
89:
78:
77:
74:
66:
63:
43:(TTAB) of the
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1180:
1169:
1166:
1165:
1163:
1148:
1145:
1143:
1140:
1138:
1135:
1134:
1131:
1125:
1122:
1120:
1117:
1115:
1112:
1110:
1107:
1105:
1102:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1094:
1090:
1084:
1081:
1079:
1076:
1074:
1071:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1061:
1060:
1058:
1054:
1048:
1045:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1034:
1032:
1028:
1022:
1019:
1017:
1014:
1012:
1009:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
992:
989:
988:
986:
982:
972:
969:
967:
964:
962:
959:
958:
956:
952:
946:
943:
941:
938:
936:
933:
931:
928:
926:
923:
921:
918:
917:
915:
913:
909:
903:
900:
898:
895:
893:
890:
888:
885:
883:
880:
878:
875:
873:
870:
868:
865:
863:
860:
859:
857:
853:
847:
844:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
829:
827:
824:
823:
821:
819:
815:
812:
810:
806:
800:
799:United States
797:
795:
792:
790:
787:
785:
782:
780:
777:
775:
772:
770:
767:
765:
762:
760:
757:
755:
752:
750:
747:
745:
742:
741:
739:
735:
729:
726:
724:
721:
719:
716:
714:
711:
709:
706:
704:
701:
699:
696:
695:
693:
689:
674:
671:
669:
666:
664:
661:
659:
656:
654:
653:Disparagement
651:
649:
646:
644:
641:
639:
636:
634:
631:
629:
626:
624:
621:
619:
616:
614:
611:
609:
606:
604:
601:
599:
596:
594:
591:
589:
586:
584:
581:
580:
578:
574:
570:
569:Trademark law
563:
558:
556:
551:
549:
544:
543:
540:
533:
517:
513:
507:
504:
499:
495:
488:
485:
480:
476:
472:
465:
463:
459:
448:
446:
438:
435:
424:
420:
413:
410:
399:
398:Rolling Stone
395:
388:
385:
374:
370:
366:
362:
355:
352:
340:
336:
330:
327:
317:on 2006-04-26
313:
309:
305:
298:
291:
289:
285:
274:. 24 May 2019
273:
269:
263:
260:
249:
248:www.uspto.gov
245:
239:
236:
232:
227:
225:
223:
219:
215:
211:
206:
203:
196:
192:
191:
187:
185:
182:
180:
177:
175:
172:
171:
167:
165:
162:
160:
155:
151:
147:
145:
141:
137:
133:
129:
125:
121:
113:
111:
109:
103:
96:
93:
90:
87:
86:
85:
82:
75:
72:
71:
70:
65:Determination
64:
62:
60:
59:
54:
53:Supreme Court
50:
46:
42:
38:
35:
32:
31:United States
28:
27:Disparagement
22:
855:Non-standard
831:Service mark
652:
520:. Retrieved
518:. 2017-06-19
515:
506:
497:
493:
487:
478:
474:
450:. Retrieved
444:
437:
426:. Retrieved
422:
412:
401:. Retrieved
397:
387:
376:. Retrieved
364:
354:
343:. Retrieved
341:. 2017-11-17
338:
329:
319:, retrieved
312:the original
307:
303:
276:. Retrieved
271:
262:
251:. Retrieved
247:
238:
230:
205:
188:
163:
156:
152:
148:
144:Soviet Union
117:
104:
100:
83:
79:
68:
58:Matal v. Tam
56:
26:
25:
1073:Stolichnaya
892:Ghost marks
836:Trade dress
789:Philippines
598:Passing off
339:DuetsBlog ®
214:§ 1052
190:Matal v Tam
522:2020-03-10
452:2020-03-10
428:2020-03-10
403:2020-03-10
378:2020-03-10
345:2020-03-10
321:2007-07-12
278:2020-03-10
253:2020-03-10
197:References
120:Lanham Act
1142:Case laws
1078:Ugg boots
1063:Budweiser
764:Hong Kong
744:Australia
373:0362-4331
159:Simon Tam
136:cigarette
34:trademark
16:Trademark
1162:Category
1056:Disputes
846:Wordmark
818:Standard
691:Treaties
638:Fair use
588:Dilution
576:Concepts
168:See also
124:standing
1092:Related
1030:Symbols
954:Related
774:Ireland
737:Country
21:Mockery
984:Bodies
966:Emblem
749:Canada
481:: 465.
371:
212:
132:Muslim
128:Buddha
1011:ICANN
1006:USPTO
1001:EUIPO
961:Brand
809:Types
779:Japan
769:India
754:China
713:TRIPS
315:(PDF)
300:(PDF)
29:, in
1021:CIPO
991:WIPO
971:Logo
784:Oman
369:ISSN
445:sic
308:106
37:law
1164::
514:.
498:12
496:.
479:49
477:.
473:.
461:^
421:.
396:.
367:.
363:.
337:.
306:,
302:,
287:^
270:.
246:.
221:^
146:.
61:.
561:e
554:t
547:v
525:.
455:.
431:.
406:.
381:.
348:.
281:.
256:.
216:.
23:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.