N/S Supreme Court Rejects Washington's Trademark Appeal [Update New SCOTUS ruling on separate case favors Redskins) (1 Viewer)

... This can't go well down the road...
 
... This can't go well down the road...

I think the idea is that trademark registration is the process to make trademarks efficient - if there's ever a dispute about which was first, you go to registration. But it's just a registry, the government isn't endorsing the mark in anyway. Having the PTO figure out what is disparaging and what isn't doesn't seem appropriate in that context. It is bound to lead to its own controversies, and that isn't the purpose of the registry.

That's the idea. Perhaps there's room for criticism. Note that the Court was effectively unanimous (no dissenters).
 
I think the idea is that trademark registration is the process to make trademarks efficient - if there's ever a dispute about which was first, you go to registration. But it's just a registry, the government isn't endorsing the mark in anyway. Having the PTO figure out what is disparaging and what isn't doesn't seem appropriate in that context. It is bound to lead to its own controversies, and that isn't the purpose of the registry.

That's the idea. Perhaps there's room for criticism. Note that the Court was effectively unanimous (no dissenters).

I don't like the ruling. It doesn't just say this case did not cross the line, it seems to say there is no line. The KKK can trademark things involving the N word now, nazis can trademark holocaust nostalgia, radical islamic terrorists can trademark slogans for wiping out infidels. Between this and the dogfighting and animal crushing case where they said it was ok to depict illegal activity as free speech if you did not do the activity yourself, basically terrorists could trademark a name and release a line of terrorist highlight videos.
 
I don't like the ruling. It doesn't just say this case did not cross the line, it seems to say there is no line. The KKK can trademark things involving the N word now, nazis can trademark holocaust nostalgia, radical islamic terrorists can trademark slogans for wiping out infidels. Between this and the dogfighting and animal crushing case where they said it was ok to depict illegal activity as free speech if you did not do the activity yourself, basically terrorists could trademark a name and release a line of terrorist highlight videos.


I see your point but I think you have to view the ruling in the context of what a trademark is and what it does. If you have a trademark, it's only intended to do one thing: prevent someone else form marketing something that can be confused with your business in the marketplace. It provides an orderly administration of trade associations - a business gets a trademark so no one else can try to profit off of appearing to be associated with you when they aren't. That's all it does. It does not convey any rights or status or endorsement of any quality of the business - it only protects against infringement.

If it is otherwise legal for the KKK to market things with the N word, not being able to get a trademark isn't going to stop that. Nazis can market things with holocaust nostalgia. Islamic terrorists can use slogans for wiping out infidels. None of those things is impacted at all over the question of whether there is a trademark. All the trademark does is keep others from infringing upon that trademark in the marketplace.


Also, we should note that the basis of the ruling was in the First Amendment. The name of a business is effectively private speech. The trademark office refusing to register a trademark on some subjective determination of "disparaging" goes against what we have developed as parameters of protected speech. Free speech is often offensive, by nature.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom