Matal V. Tam Court Case Summary

In the Matal v. Tam court case, the court settled certain aspects of the First Amendment law while it opened up new issues in trademark law. It is a challenge for the uninitiated to follow a coherent path through the court’s First Amendment. Tam and his band, The Slants, sought to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office. The Office denied the application because it found that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent.” The office cited the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs,

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which found that the trademark officials were within their rights to refuse the trademark application under the Disparagement Clause. The appellate court then reviewed the case en banc, by the full court, and found that the trademark office was incorrect in refusing the trademark application and that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment. Much of the argument focused on whether a federally registered trademark—defined by Congress as “any word, name or symbol” used by a person to “identify and distinguish his or her goods” and to “indicate the source of the goods”—is capable of representing the expression of an idea worthy of protection from government intrusion. The fundamental issue at the heart of the case is whether a federally registered trademark is merely a commercial statement designed only to increase the profit of its owner, or is a trademark also capable of something more—a communicative expression intended by its owner to make a noncommercial statement about him or herself and to contribute to the marketplace of ideas. After listening to the parties’ oral arguments before the Court, it is clear that the government’s restriction on disparaging marks is in serious