20 June, 2017
The Supreme Court on Monday sided with Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants in striking down a provision in trademark law that banned the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) from registering disparaging names.
After the government rejected The Slants' request, Tam appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, which in 2015 ruled that the so-called disparagement provision of the 1946 law governing trademarks ran afoul of the Constitution's guarantee of free speech. Courts had long ruled that it didn't violate the First Amendment because it doesn't actually bar the real-life use of the offending mark, nor does it prevent the owner from enforcing common law trademark rights.
The case has drawn intense interest as it focused on the rights of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution, at a time of heightened racial tensions in the country.
The justices ruled that the 71-year-old trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes free speech rights.
That appears to mean that the Redskins also will be able to continue using their name, even though it offends people as well.
The NFL team's appeal has not yet been heard by a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va.
Trump causing a global leadership vacuum — Former UN chief
During Obama's tenure, U.S. carbon emissions decreased while the economy strengthened, and both GDP and employment increased. In the communique, the USA added a footnote saying it's taking its own steps to reduce the country's carbon footprint.
Kane scores late in England's 2-2 draw vs Scotland
Three Lions substitute Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain looked to have set the visitors on course for a World Cup qualifying victory with a 70th-minute opener.
New UK election only alternative to deal with DUP
I'm ready for another general election", Corbyn said. "When it becomes a matter for me is when people try to redefine marriage". Downing Street said it hopes to finalize the deal next week, after Parliament resumes sitting.
Tam said the band was "beyond humbled and thrilled" with the ruling.
The trademark office canceled the football team's lucrative trademarks in 2014 after ruling that the word "Redskins" was an insult to Native Americans.
"The Supreme Court vindicated the team's position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government's opinion", Blatt told the Associated Press.
Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said the team was "thrilled" with the court's decision. As Justice Alito noted in the court's opinion on the case, Tam maintained that naming the band after a slur was an attempt from a member of a marginalized community to reclaim a derogatory phrase used to oppress and strip it of its power.
"A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all", writes Kennedy. The band's lawyers argued that the government can not use trademark law to impose burdens on free speech to protect listeners from offense.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office appealed that ruling to the high court in April, and the justices granted certiorari in September. The protections include blocking the sale of counterfeit merchandise and working to pursue a brand development strategy.