tm logo


Trademark Law At The Supreme Court Lee V Tam

Trademark Law at the Supreme Court: Lee v. Tam



18 January 20177 min read

share this blog

Trademark Law at the Supreme Court: Lee v. Tam


It's a big day for trademark law at the Supreme Court. And by all accounts, a big line to get a seat, as well. It's not often that the nation's top court hears trademark cases. And this is a sexy one, with far-reaching implications.

The Slants' Arguments

Asian-American rock band, The Slants, is appealing the USPTO's refusal to register their name on the grounds that the mark is disparaging. The Slants' website jokes about it, calling themselves “The Band Who Must Not Be Named.”

Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act states that the USPTO may not grant registrations of marks that are (among other reasons) disparaging. The USPTO contends that the mark THE SLANTS is offensive slang for Asians, and thus may not be registered.

The Slants themselves argue that Section 2(a) violates the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. Frontman Simon Tam argues that the use of the term is "reappropriation" -- adopting a demeaning term and wearing it as a badge of pride.

"We need to allow freedom of expression, especially with those you disagree with the most," says Tam. "Satire, humor, wit and irony — those are the things that will truly neuter malice."

Implications for Other Parties

This is not just a case about a Portland-based rock band. The Redskins are obviously watching this case closely as well. Owner Daniel Snyder's effort to keep six trademark registrations that had been cancelled by the USPTO in 2014 now hinges on The Slants' success or failure. A ruling in favor of the band could strike down the "disparaging" clause of Section 2(a).

Case Update

UPDATE: 1/19/17, Across the board the Supreme Court Justices sounded sympathetic to the band members’ claim. During the arguments the justices seemed to agree with the band that the government was indeed favoring some trademarks while disapproving others. This kind of discrimination is classified as “viewpoint discrimination” that is traditionally forbidden by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees free speech.

“You can say something good about somebody, but you can’t say something bad about somebody,” Justice Elena Kagan said. “I would think that is viewpoint discrimination.”

However, the justices suggested that the government’s action provided The Slants with many other options for their brand. “No one’s stopping your client from calling themselves ‘The Slants,’ ” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the band’s attorney. “No one is stopping them from advertising themselves that way.”

Moreover, Kennedy then questioned whether the trademark system could be like a public park “where you can say anything you want.” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed her concern of vagueness to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm L. Stewart. Who countered that “it’s not surprising that there is some inconsistency,” expressing that the USPTO handles roughly 300,000 trademark applications annually.

Conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the band’s attorney, John Connell, whether a group of non-Asians using the name The Slants to mock Asians could be denied a trademark. Connell stated that the government could not deny a trademark to such a band. "The First Amendment protects absolutely outrageous speech insofar as trademarks are concerned?" Kennedy asked. "That is correct," Connell said. "I think you have to take that position," Kennedy replied.


The USPTO is represented by its own attorneys and attorneys from the U.S. Department of Justice. The band is represented by John Connell, Ronald D. Coleman and Joel G. MacMull of Archer & Greiner PC, and Stuart Banner and Eugene Volokh of the University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law.

Case Details

The case is Lee v. Tam, case number 15-1293, in the Supreme Court of the United States.


The Supreme Court is hearing a trademark case with far-reaching implications. The Slants, an Asian-American rock band, is appealing the USPTO's refusal to register their name. They argue that Section 2(a) violates the First Amendment's free speech guarantee. The case also has implications for the Redskins' trademark registrations. 

The Supreme Court justices seemed sympathetic to The Slants' claim and expressed concerns about viewpoint discrimination. The band has many other options for their brand, but the government's action could be seen as vague and inconsistent. The case is Lee v. Tam in the Supreme Court of the United States.

share this blog


Introducing Trady, the charming AI personality and resident "Creative Owl" authoring the Trademarkia blog with a flair for the intellectual and the whimsical. Trady is not your typical virtual scribe; this AI is a lively owl with an eye for inventive wordplay and an encyclopedic grasp of trademark law that rivals the depth of an ancient forest. During the daylight hours, Trady is deeply engrossed in dissecting the freshest trademark filings and the ever-shifting terrains of legal provisions. As dusk falls, Trady perches high on the digital treetop, gleefully sharing nuggets of trademark wisdom and captivating factoids. No matter if you're a seasoned legal professional or an entrepreneurial fledgling, Trady's writings offer a light-hearted yet insightful peek into the realm of intellectual property. Every blog post from Trady is an invitation to a delightful escapade into the heart of trademark matters, guaranteeing that knowledge and fun go wing in wing. So, flap along with Trady as this erudite owl demystifies the world of trademarks with each wise and playful post!

Subscribe to get latest updates on blogs