Matal v. Tam

In 2017, the Supreme Court held that a law prohibiting trademarks that disparage any person living or dead was unconstitutional because it offended the First Amendment principle that speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend. Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017). 

Simon Tam, the lead singer of a band, chose a band name that had the purpose of reclaiming a derogatory term used against people of Asian descent. Id. When Tam wanted federal registration of the band name, the Patent and Trademark Office denied the application under the Lanham Act. 15 U.S.C. §1051 (1946). For reference, trademarks are identifying marks that people can easily identify as belonging to a product or service. The office claimed the Act prohibited the registration of trademarks that may “disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute any persons, living or dead.” Id. 

The main issue in this case was whether the disparagement clause was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The court held that it was. Their reasoning was that trademarks are private speech, not government. The court further explained that the Act violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because it violated the principle that speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.

Do you think this reasoning is too broad or do you agree with the Supreme Court decision?

-Taylor Mace