Matal v. Tam
Supreme Court of the United States
1Opinion of the Court
The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application based on a provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of trademarks that may "disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] or disrepute" any "persons, living or dead." 15 U.S.C. § 1052 (a). We now hold that this provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.
I
A
"The principle underlying trademark protection is that distinctive marks-words, names, symbols, and the like-can help…
Also in this document: Concurring in the judgment · Kennedy; Concurring in the judgment · Thomas.
2Cases cited62 opinions
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Clinton v. JonesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
57 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by332 opinions
- Mei Xing Yu v. Hasaki Restaurant, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2019
- Brian Davison v. Phyllis RandallCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2019
- Wandering Dago, Inc. v. DestitoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2018
- Archdiocese of Wash. v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2018
- Iancu v. BrunettiSupreme Court of the United States · 2019
327 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.