Misbehaved Marks: Exploring the Implications of Iancu v. Brunetti
Devon Sanders In Iancu v. Brunetti, the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment barred the United States Patent and Trademark Office from denying trademark registration for “immoral or scandalous” marks. This marked the first time that owners could register potentially obscene or derogatory marks. This decision changes the future of trademark registration and leaves lasting repercussions throughout trademark law in general. This Article explores the history of trademark law’s ban on registration for immoral or scandalous marks, recent judicial reform with Iancu v. Brunetti and its implications, and potential solutions to challenges caused by the decision. Read Full Text...
The Best Offense Is a Good Defense: How the Washington [NFL team] Overcame Challenges to Their Registered Trademarks
Lynette Paczkowski Editors Note: This article contains a racial slur the IPTF does not support. Discussion of the slur is in a purely academic context. Please direct any comments or questions to bciptf@gmail.com In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”) decided Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., in which a group of Native Americans (the “Petitioners”) alleged that the term “Redskin(s)” was a pejorative, derogatory, degrading, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person; the marks owned by Pro-Football, Inc. (“Pro-Football”), were offensive, disparaging and scandalous; Pro-Football’s use of the marks offended the petitioners and other...