Symposium: The First Amendment silences trademark – SCOTUSblog (blog)
Ned Snow is a professor of law at the University of South Carolina School of Law.
In Matal v. Tam (formerly called Lee v. Tam), the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, which prevents registration of marks that employ disparaging names. The linchpin of its opinion is the conclusion that the disparagement clause constitutes viewpoint discrimination. Secondarily, the court relies on the argument that the disparagement clause does not support the governments interest in regulating speech. As I explain below, these arguments are unconvincing. Finally, the court articulates a broader policy concern of upholding restrictions that directly suppress speech in the commercial marketplace. That concern, I argue, is unfounded for the disparagement clause.
Viewpoint discrimination
Viewpoint discrimination is simple to understand (although sometimes difficult to apply): It occurs when the government prohibits a particular view or takes a position rather than prohibiting a general category or subject matter of speech. At first blush, the disparagement clause seems to prohibit only a general category of speech rather than a particular viewpoint: The clause does not adopt a position, indiscriminately applying to all hate speech, regardless of which person or institution a mark might disparage. Yet the court sees it differently. Justice Samuel Alito explains that a prohibition of all disparaging views is still a prohibition of viewpoints. In his words: Giving offense is a viewpoint. And Justice Anthony Kennedy further explains: To prohibit all sides from criticizing their opponents makes a law more viewpoint based, not less so. Apparently, then, prohibiting all positions on a subject matter is just as viewpoint discriminatory as prohibiting only one. End of case, or so it would seem.
But this rationale is troubling. It calls into question other fundamental provisions of the Lanham Act. The Lanham Act prohibits registration of marks that both provide truthful information and make subjective assertions about their products. More specifically, the Lanham Act prohibits registration of marks that are generic descriptions of goods, that are specific descriptions of characteristics of goods, that are surnames (even of the source), and that indicate the geographic origin of a good. (Some of these types of marks may gain trademark protection over time and through an expensive showing of secondary meaning, but for purposes of viewpoint-discrimination analysis, the fact that they are denied in the absence of these circumstances is all that matters.) In short, the Lanham Act specifically prohibits applicants from telling truthful information and making claims about a good or its source. Are these provisions of the Lanham Act viewpoint discriminatory? According to Alitos reasoning, it would seem so: Telling the truth is a viewpoint a viewpoint, incidentally, that is much more central to the purpose of the First Amendment than is hate speech. And according to Kennedys reasoning: [t]o prohibit all sides from [making claims about their products] makes a law more viewpoint based, not less so, suggesting that a blanket prohibition of descriptive truths is viewpoint discriminatory. According to the reasoning of the Tam court, the Lanham Acts provisions that bar registration for truthful content would seem viewpoint discriminatory.
Consider also the Lanham Acts prohibition of government symbols. Section 2 of the Lanham Act bars trademark protection for any mark that [c]onsists of or comprises the flag or coat of arms or other insignia of the United States, or of any State or municipality, or of any foreign nation, or any simulation thereof. Last time I checked, preventing someone from expressing his patriotism by displaying the United States flag constituted an abridgement of free speech. Under the courts reasoning, the Lanham Acts prohibition of trademark registration for government symbols would be viewpoint discriminatory.
How, then, is a prohibition against disparaging speech any more viewpoint discriminatory than the other prohibitions in the Lanham Act? Stated differently, what principle dictates the viewpoint distinction between the disparagement clause and the other criteria for trademark eligibility? I dont see it. The disparagement clause cannot be viewpoint discriminatory for the simple reason that if it were, it would imply the viewpoint-discriminatory nature of other fundamental registration criteria.
Limited public forum
Why does it matter whether the discrimination is based on viewpoint or subject matter? Alito explains that if the discrimination were not viewpoint based, it might be justified under the limited-public-forum doctrine. Congress has created a public forum the trademark registration system to facilitate private speech, and as a result, the trademark system appears to constitute a limited public forum. In such a metaphysical forum, Congress may impose content-based restrictions that are viewpoint neutral, to the extent that the restrictions support the purpose of the forum. The disparagement clause, then, would be permissible to the extent that it supports the purpose of the trademark system, which I address below in discussing commercial-speech regulation.
Commercial speech regulation
Tellingly, Alito does not rely solely on viewpoint discrimination to condemn the disparagement clause. He analyzes the clause under the test for commercial-speech regulation. Key to this analysis is the government interest in regulating speech. Stated another way: What is it about the context of trademark law that would justify Congress in withholding registration from a disparaging mark? One interest is the orderly flow of commerce. That seems reasonable, given that hate speech does tend to interfere with people engaging in commercial transactions. Alito, however, argues that the statute is not narrowly tailored to this interest, so as to prevent only the sort of invidious discrimination that would disrupt commerce. That is debatable. Arguably, the court could interpret the disparagement clause narrowly, to avoid an unconstitutional interpretation.
Putting aside the orderly-flow-of-commerce interest, the court failed to recognize another important government interest underlying the disparagement clause: the interest in facilitating a peaceful society among citizens of disparate backgrounds and beliefs. A system of commerce that invites all to participate is integral to the fabric of a peaceful society. Religion, ideology and political party all yield to the commercial transaction of buyer and seller cooperating. Disparaging marks threaten this benefit of commerce. Disparaging marks work against universal cooperation in the marketplace. They facilitate an environment of exclusion. They promote disrespect rather than cooperation. Commercial offers for sale, which are supposed to facilitate universal cooperation, become a means to promote disrespect towards others. Simply put, disparaging marks contravene the critically important social benefit of a commercial system. Preventing those marks serves the underlying and broad purpose of commerce generally.
Thus, I am doubtful about the doctrinal underpinnings of the Tam decision. Its rationale for viewpoint discrimination appears weak when compared with the Lanham Acts other discriminatory criteria for trademark registration. Similarly, the disparagement clause appears justifiable as a commercial-speech regulation because it supports the governments interest in facilitating universal participation in the commercial marketplace.
Speech suppression in the commercial marketplace
All this being said, the court does raise an understandable concern. Alito frankly voices that concern:
The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates. If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social volatility, free speech would be endangered.
It would seem, then, that the court is fearful that protected and valuable speech could be suppressed merely by labeling it as commercial. What if Congress passed a law that prohibited any critical speech in commercial print? Would the commercial nature of the speech justify such broad content-based regulation? First is a ban on disparaging trademarks, and next is a ban on The New York Times. Loudly the court opines that commerciality does not justify prohibitions on speech that permeates public life in this particular instance, trademarks.
This concern makes sense to a point. Certainly we must avoid suppressing ideas in the name of facilitating commerciality. Unconstitutional speech suppression might arise were Congress to withhold money, impose a fine or affix criminal penalties in response to speech content. But none of these acts of speech suppression is present here. Indeed, according to the court, the benefit of trademark registration is not the same as a cash subsidy or its equivalent. The benefit of registration lies entirely in the commercial realm, thereby limiting the influence of the disparagement clause to that commercial realm. For that matter, withholding registration does not prevent financial success in the commercial marketplace. Even without registration, a disparaging mark can still serve as a trademark. It can still identify source. And owners of disparaging marks can still fully participate in the commercial marketplace. So although a disparaging mark would lack the commercial benefit of registration, that mark could still succeed both financially and philosophically in the marketplace of ideas. Speech suppression is not occurring here.
In sum, Congress should be able to reward civility in commercial discourse. A society can both appreciate the value of contrary and even hateful ideas and at the same time reward commercial speakers who choose to engage civilly. There is neither suppression nor viewpoint discrimination when the people choose to reward civil discourse in commercial transactions.
Posted in Matal v. Tam, Symposium on the court's ruling in Matal v. Tam, Featured
Recommended Citation: Ned Snow, Symposium: The First Amendment silences trademark, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 20, 2017, 12:43 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/symposium-first-amendment-silences-trademark/
Read more from the original source:
Symposium: The First Amendment silences trademark - SCOTUSblog (blog)
- Here Is Why Harvard Argues That Trump's Funding Freeze Violates the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Thankfully, Larry David mocks Bill Maher First Amendment News 467 - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- No, Gov. Lombardo, nobody was being paid to exercise First Amendment rights - Reno Gazette Journal - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Letter from the Editor: The First Amendment shaped my time on the Hill - WKUHerald.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Analysis: Pro-Hamas speech is protected by the First Amendment - Free Speech Center - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Who Will Fight for the First Amendment? Protecting Free Expression at a Critical Time - - Center for Democracy and Technology - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- What the Doxxing of Student Activists Means For the First Amendment - The Progressive - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Does Gov. Landrys bid to restrict attorney advertising violate the First Amendment? - Baton Rouge Business Report - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Harvard invokes First Amendment in US lawsuit over academic control - Times of India - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Fun with the First Amendment: Why Sarah Palins lawyers are happy, and why Deborah Lipstadt isnt - Media Nation - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Is Being Rewritten in Real Time - Rewire News Group - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Criminalizing the Assertion of First Amendment Rights - Law.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Massachusetts First Amendment case: Harmony Montgomerys custody hearing audio to be released - Boston Herald - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Harvard, Trump and the First Amendment: Will Others Follow Suit? - Law.com - April 25th, 2025 [April 25th, 2025]
- Executive Watch: The breadth and depth of the Trump administrations threat to the First Amendment First Amendment News 465 - FIRE | Foundation for... - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Rising Wave of Funders and PSOs Stand Up for the First Amendment Freedom to Give - Inside Philanthropy - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Clear commands of First Amendment precedent: Trump-appointed judge rejects government motion to stay court order allowing Associated Press back into... - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Distinguished lecture series on First Amendment at URI adds Visiting Professors of Practice Rhody Today - The University of Rhode Island - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Everything starts with a voice: Understanding the First Amendment - The Tack Online - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- This is an all-out war on the First Amendment - mronline.org - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- The lost right in the first amendment - The Tack Online - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Zero-tolerance laws on Tennessee school shooting threats raise First Amendment worries - The Tennessean - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Federal Judge Orders White House to Restore Access to AP, Citing First Amendment - Democracy Now! - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Does the First Amendment apply to the students in Texas who had their visas revoked? - Fort Worth Star-Telegram - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Guest Column: Detention of Tufts Student a Brazen Attack on the First Amendment - The Bedford Citizen - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- KU students protest for First Amendment rights - The Washburn Review - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Trackergate: The First Amendment Fights Back as Schieve and Hartung Face the Music - Nevada Globe - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- A friend's wedding, the First Amendment - Delta Democrat-Times - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Judge rules against White House in AP's First Amendment case - newscentermaine.com - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- UMass Amherst library hosts webinar on the First Amendment and book banning - Massachusetts Daily Collegian - April 12th, 2025 [April 12th, 2025]
- Kansas Statehouse clownery has torn First Amendment to shreds. Who will tape it back together? - Kansas Reflector - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Is Mahmoud Khalil protected by the First Amendment? - CNN - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- D.C. Media's Gridiron Dinner Features A Toast To The First Amendment --- And Not To The President - Deadline - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Mayors Threat to Close Miami Cinema Over No Other Land Screening Condemned by Film Groups as First Amendment Violation - Yahoo - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- TSA Screeners' Union Sues the Trump Administration for Violating Its First Amendment Rights - Reason - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Kevin McCabe: Why defending the First Amendment means protecting the Second - Must Read Alaska - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Murder the Truth explores the campaign against the First Amendment - The Washington Post - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- The Trump-Musk Administration Is Running Out of Ways to Ignore the First Amendment - Balls & Strikes - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- From Gods to Google: DU Law Professor Sounds Alarm Over First Amendment and Technology Regulation - University of Denver Newsroom - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Intimidating abridgments and political stunts First Amendment News 461 - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Opinion | The Khalil case is a threat to First Amendment rights - The Washington Post - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Fallout from campus protests sparks debate on limits of the First Amendment - Spectrum News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Troy Carico: Stabbing the First Amendment in the back in Alabama | - 1819 News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Donald Trump Is Tearing Up The First Amendment - HuffPost - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Sorry Mahmoud Khalil, Aliens Do Not Have the Same First Amendment Rights as American Citizens - Immigration Blog - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- BREAKING: Bill Nye to headline annual Loyolan First Amendment Week - Los Angeles Loyolan - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Spokane and Bonner county sheriff's offices can no longer hide or delete critical Facebook comments after First Amendment concerns, judges rule - The... - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Paula Rigano: Last time I checked, the First Amendment still stood - GazetteNET - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Trump is using antisemitism as a pretext for a war on the first amendment | Judith Levine - The Guardian - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Professor Can Continue with First Amendment Claim Over Denial of Raise for Including Expurgated Slurs on Exam - Reason - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Free Mahmoud Khalil and protect students exercising their First Amendment rights! - MoveOn's petitions - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Guy Ciarrocchi: The lesson from Covid the experts hate our First Amendment - Broad + Liberty - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Trump Administration Faces Growing Backlash Over First Amendment Concerns and Threats to Free Speech - Arise News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- The Lobby, Mahmoud Khalil & the First Amendment - Consortium News - March 18th, 2025 [March 18th, 2025]
- Expressive Discrimination: Universities' First Amendment Right to Affirmative Action Part 2 - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Inside Israel's Plan To Resume the War and 'Eradicate Hamas.' Plus, Trump's Press Pool Takeover Is Not an Assault on the First Amendment. - Washington... - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Expressive Discrimination: Universities' First Amendment Right to Affirmative Action - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- OPINION: Attacking the First Amendment and America's free press - Midland Daily News - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Press pool takeover drowns First Amendment - Freedom of the Press Foundation - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- First Amendment Victory! Wyoming Airport Agrees to Settlement After Rejecting PETA Ad - PETA - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Our View: Theres nothing murky about the First Amendment - Palestine Herald Press - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Ohio Universitys complicated history with the First Amendment and student expression - The New Political - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- A free press makes a country free The First Amendment protects the liberty of all - Hawaii Tribune-Herald - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Whats the First Amendment Got to Do With It? The White Houses Associated Press Ban - Law.com - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Opinion | The First Amendment Isnt on Trumps Side - The Wall Street Journal - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Trump Tries To Carve Out a First Amendment Exception for 'Fake News' - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- MTHS receives its 15th First Amendment Press Freedom Award - MLT News - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- The White House takeover of the press pool is a brazen attack on the First Amendment - MSNBC - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Donald Trump violated the First Amendment when he barred The Associated Press from the White House - The Observer - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- D.C.'s U.S. Attorney Is a Menace to the First Amendment - Reason - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Ominous Move to Strip Americans of First Amendment Rights - DCReport - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Editorial New York Daily News: A free press makes a country free The First Amendment protects the liberty of all - The Daily News Online - March 3rd, 2025 [March 3rd, 2025]
- Narrow Applicability Is Not the Same As Narrow Tailoring: Applying the First Amendment in First Choice Womens Resource Centers v. Platkin - The... - February 27th, 2025 [February 27th, 2025]
- More to Every Story: First Amendment rights and public events - KREM.com - February 27th, 2025 [February 27th, 2025]
- Trumps lawsuit barred by the First Amendment, pollsters team argues - The Washington Post - February 27th, 2025 [February 27th, 2025]
- Judge orders local newspaper to remove editorial; owner says this violates First Amendment rights - WLBT - February 27th, 2025 [February 27th, 2025]
- AP sues Trump officials over Oval Office ban, citing First Amendment - Axios - February 27th, 2025 [February 27th, 2025]
- A free press makes a country free: The First Amendment protects the liberty of all - New York Daily News - February 27th, 2025 [February 27th, 2025]
- Ilya Shapiro is back . . . with a new book First Amendment News 458 - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - February 20th, 2025 [February 20th, 2025]
- People exercising their First Amendment rights aren't 'wreckers' | Letters - South Bend Tribune - February 20th, 2025 [February 20th, 2025]