Introduction
The issues of the freedom of speech raised in the social sphere, as a rule, cause a great public resonance and become the subject of active discussion. The First Amendment, which is the constitutional guarantor, often becomes a key aspect affecting the adoption of specific decisions by courts. As a result, court hearings that involve discussions of the freedom of speech at the level of the First Amendment attract attention and are resolved by the Supreme Court. As an example, Metal v. Tam will be considered, including its premises, outcomes, and implications for subsequent judicial practice (United States, Supreme Court). This case is exponential since the controversy of the issue raised concerning the possible insult of a number of persons by the brand name has been raised more than once. The justifications given to the plaintiff prove that the strength of the First Amendment is significant and cannot be challenged on the basis of personal and other convictions. The principles of the freedom of speech regulated at the legislative level do not concern the double interpretation of individual trademarks, and their observance is a prerequisite for the policy of equality.
Background of the Court Case
The decision in the present case was made on June 19, 2017, and since then, in similar hearings, references to Metal v. Tam have been cited (United States, Supreme Court). The background of the case is as follows: the frontman of the musical group “The Slants,” Simon Tam, applied to the Federal Patent Office to register his trademark under the same name. However, after consideration, the office issued a verdict stating that this title could not be entered in the state register due to a clear insult to a specific part of ethnic minorities, in particular, citizens of Asian descent. Mr. Tam was dissatisfied with this decision and was ready to appeal it in court. The state patent board, in turn, referred to controversial sources, including an unofficial dictionary of popular terms, and argued that the proposed trademark name offended people of Asian descent due to an ingrained linguistic name. The case was referred to the Supreme Court for a final verdict. As a constitutional issue raised, it was proposed to resolve whether Mr. Tam’s intention to register his trademark complied with the provisions of the First Amendment or not.
As a judicial background and precedent in this constitutional issue, one can note the case of FCC v. Fox Television Stations in 2012 (United States, Supreme Court). The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) filed a lawsuit against the Fox Television Stations (FTS) and demanded the channel be denied the right to broadcast inappropriate content (United States, Supreme Court, “FCC v. Fox Television Stations”). In particular, the plaintiff drew attention to some expletives and nudity scenes. However, after the case was referred to the Supreme Court, the hearing process involved the First Amendment as one of the key supporting documents in favor of the FTS. The FCC did not give the FTS the proper information in advance and did not inform the channel about possible sanctions and bans. As a result, the content published could not be viewed in the context of the violation of official legislation since the freedom of speech allowed creators to act within the framework of acceptable broadcasting conditions. Thus, the case was resolved in favor of the FTS, which became a significant fact in court practice and was later used as a background for similar trials.
One of the main arguments of the patent authority was a reference to the Lanham Act (United States, Supreme Court, “Matal v. Tam”). According to Meiners et al., this normative act is the main law governing trademark legislation and defining restrictions and prohibitions on certain types of advertising (465). According to the Federal Patent Office, the name “The Slants” was offensive and could not be listed on the basis of the Lanham Act (United States, Supreme Court, “Matal v. Tam”). As Meiners et al. note, any commercial activity that offends misleads, or deceives the target audience is subject to prohibition (465). Mr. Tam, in turn, argued that his musical group had the same name, and he was entitled to rely on commercial profits due to trading activities (United States, Supreme Court, “Matal v. Tam”). In addition, he referred to the fact that this name had been given to the band more than ten years before, and there were no complaints from the federal authorities (United States, Supreme Court, “Matal v. Tam”). The Supreme Court took both positions and issued an appropriate decision on the basis of the current legislation.
Hearing Outcomes
The Supreme Court case under consideration has become a landmark due to precedents in the US law and, in particular, the controversial issue of the freedom of speech. The First Amendment was one of the significant elements to which the judicial board referred in the discussion process. Ultimately, the decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous in favor of Mr. Tam. One of the main arguments was the assertion that, despite their public nature and purpose, trademarks were private property and did not belong to state property (United States, Supreme Court, “Matal v. Tam”). This meant that the musician had the right to freely use the name of his brand since he was the founder of the band and could count on the registration of a trade brand under the same name. In addition, as stated in the case file, the insult to which the Federal Patent Office was subjective, which, in turn, did not allow restricting Mr. Tam’s opportunities to issue the corresponding trademark (United States, Supreme Court, “Matal v. Tam”). Thus, the decision proved the strength of the First Amendment and its impact on controversial cases involving constitutional issues.
One of the important outcomes of this hearing was the reassessment of the Lanham Act as one of the legislative documents that could have a serious impact on judicial regulation. According to Myers, the opportunities of “free speech considerations” are higher than “immoral, scandalous, and disparaging marks” that are given in the aforementioned act (69). In other words, the practice of referring to the document that restrained any controversial statements or wills was revised, and the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the issue of trademark registration proves this. The failure to justify the intentional humiliation of honor and dignity of citizens in the case of Metal v. Tam is clear evidence of the controversy and illegitimacy of the arguments put forward by the Federal Patent Office (United States, Supreme Court). Therefore, the outcome of this case was logical proof of the dominance of the First Amendment. Its status as one of the main regulatory acts over other conventions of the law was confirmed, which contributed to significant implications for subsequent similar constitutional issues.
Implications of the Supreme Court Case
The Supreme Court case under consideration became a landmark in judicial practice and allowed revising the policy of the freedom of speech and, in particular, individual regulatory restraints, for instance, the Lanham Act. As Conrad states, this hearing affected subsequent trials related to offensive trademarks and helped separate subjectivity from the official legislation (89). As an example, the case of Iancu v. Brunetti can be cited, which was accepted in 2019 and had a similar background (United States, Supreme Court). The Federal Patent Office attempted to prohibit the registration of a trademark with a name that resembled an abusive word phonetically. However, the Supreme Court confirmed that there was no good reason for the ban due to the subjectivity of perception and the right to free creative expression (United States, Supreme Court, “Iancu v. Brunetti”). This case justifies the fact that the earlier precedent was taken into account and used by the judicial board as an additional detail for a verdict. Thus, in addition to legislative implications, the Supreme Court case under consideration had an auxiliary function.
One of the main implications is the impact on the decisions of the Supreme Court in trademark hearings in relation to the controversy of individual lawsuits and claims. Macedo et al. remark that, recently, the supreme judicial board has not given clear definitions of which registration conventions belong to the category of prohibited and inadmissible (828). As a basic argument, the First Amendment is cited, thereby complementing the previous court cases and confirming the subjectivity of individual lawsuits. The authors argue that many members of the Supreme Court are not ready to compare trademarks with state property, which explains the detailed nature of hearings and the uniqueness of each particular claim (Macedo et al. 827). The inability to classify specific violations is justified by the complexity of social and personal aspects that, regardless of the existing legislation, can be interpreted distinctively. As a result, such cases have begun to be evaluated in more detail and as competently as possible.
In addition to the controversial assessment of trademarks from the standpoint of their legitimacy and affordability, today, brand owners can expect additional protection. In particular, according to Weller and Laidlaw, the First Amendment is not only a guarantee of the freedom of speech but also a tool that can allow equating a particular brand with a means of artistic expression. In this case, any claims and lawsuits against the owners of such brands are obviously unfounded since a cultural background does not imply references to the legislation. Weller and Laidlaw give an example of the famous gaming franchise Call of Duty and state that the accusations of its creators in the violation of the Lanham Act are not justified. The game contains realistic scenes of violence and the use of heavy weapons, which, nevertheless, is the creative product of its and cannot be regarded in the context of the call for violence. Moreover, personal perception plays a significant role and requires a competent assessment by the relevant authorities. Accordingly, any similar cases may be perceived identically due to precedents, including the case of Metal v. Tam.
Finally, as another significant implication, one can note the more personal and unique character of trademarks achieved by reassessing the impact of the existing legislation and its limitations. Myers argues that, recently, the Supreme Court has not considered the personification of brands as a government message that can be included in the state register (81). Conversely, trademark owners have been given greater freedom supplemented by the First Amendment, and the decision in the case of Metal v. Tam contributed to this. Conrad, in turn, notes that branding is more commercial than cultural in nature, and in most cases, trademark owners do not intend to convey messages to people through illegal titles (117). These arguments confirm the relevance of the decision on the case in question and make it possible to evaluate it as a significant step towards the democratization of the control policy in this constitutional sphere. Thus, due to a fair settlement of the dispute, the Supreme Court simplified the many hearings following Matal v. Tam on the topic of trademark management ambiguity.
Conclusion
The trademark law may be associated with controversial nuances regarding the registration of individual brands, but the principles of the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment dominate in assessing such disputes. The case of Matal v. Tam argues that the perception of brand personification is subjective, which, in turn, does not allow prosecuting trademark owners based on such restrictive laws as the Lanham Act. The outcome of the case is significant, and subsequent similar trials cite Matal v. Tam as one of the practical examples. Individual implications prove that the First Amendment is an important normative act that helps attribute trademarks to the objects of cultural or commercial expression but not to official state messages.
Works Cited
Conrad, Mark. “Matal v. Tam – A Victory for The Slants, a Touchdown for The Redskins, but an Ambiguous Journey for the First Amendment and Trademark Law.” Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, vol. 36, no.1, 2018, pp. 83-147.
Macedo, Charles R., et al. “US Supreme Court Holds That the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act Is Unconstitutional.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 12, no. 10, 2017, pp. 826-829.
Meiners, Roger E., et al. The Legal Environment of Business. 13th ed., Cengage Learning, 2018.
Myers, Gary. “Trademarks & the First Amenedment after Matal v. Tam.” Journal of Intellectual Property Law, vol. 26, no. 1, 2019, pp. 67-98.
United States, Supreme Court. FCC v. Fox Television Stations. 2012. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, Web.
Iancu v. Brunetti. 2019. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, Web.
Matal v. Tam. 2017. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School, Web.
Weller, Susan N., and Harold S. Laidlaw. “First Amendment May Protect Use of Trademarks as Artistic Expression.” Mintz, 2020, Web.