Cover image of Matal v. Tam

Matal v. Tam Podcasts

Read more

5 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Matal v. Tam. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Matal v. Tam, often where they are interviewed.

Read more

5 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Matal v. Tam. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Matal v. Tam, often where they are interviewed.

Updated daily with the latest episodes

Episode artwork

Disabuse Podcast - Episode 20: Matal v. Tam with guests, The Slants

Play
Read more
This episode features a conversation with Simon and Joe of the band The Slants, who won a United States Supreme Court case on free speech grounds in 2017.
Oct 14 2019 · 1hr 4mins
Episode artwork

Attorney Casey Mattox Discusses the Climate of #Freespeech Since Matal v. Tam

Play
Read more
Attorney Casey Mattox Discusses the Climate of #Freespeech Since Matal v. Tam by Lawyers For Jesus
Aug 07 2017 · 23mins
Episode artwork

Mark Sommers on Matal v. Tam

Play
Read more
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Matal v. Tam, which considered the federal trademark act’s (known as the "Lanham Act") prohibition against registering trademarks comprised of disparaging names. In that case, "The Slants," an Asian-American band, were refused a trademark based on the potentially-offensive nature of the name. The Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting the registration of offensive trademarks is unconstitutional and violates the First Amendment. In this podcast, Finnegan partner Mark Sommers discusses the Supreme Court’s decision.
Aug 07 2017 · 10mins
Episode artwork

Episode 30: Matal v. Tam: Prohibition of Offensive Marks Based On Disparagement Clause Is Unconstitutional Under the First Amendment

Play
Read more

Former Online Editor Anthony Zangrillo and Former Senior Notes and Articles Editor Joey Gerber take a break from BAR prep in order to discuss “one of the most important First Amendment free speech cases to come along in many years” Matal v. Tam.3

In the past, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has refused to register trademarks considered that disparage a particular person, group or institution. On June 19, the Supreme Court unanimously held (8-0) that the disparagement clause (Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act), is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause.

The specific case in controversy involved a Portland, Oregon, rock band “The Slants.” All the members of the band are of Asian decent and the name represents a move of empowerment in reclaiming a historically derogatory term. Simon Tam filed a trademark application to federally register the band’s name, “The Slants.” The PTO refused to register the mark as “derogatory or offensive” based on the dictionary meaning of ‘slants’ or ‘slant-eyes.’ Tam lost an appeal to the PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), but this ruling was reversed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, holding that the disparagement clause is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause.

On this podcast, Anthony and Joey discuss the Supreme Court decision and the ramifications this could have on future trademark applications, as well as other decisions such as the recent controversy over the Washington Redskins.4

Don’t forget to also subscribe to the podcast on iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/fordham-intellectual-property/id1158550285?mt=2) and leave a review!

Jul 04 2017 · 34mins
Episode artwork

Matal v. Tam - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

Play
Read more
On June 19, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam. Simon Tam of The Slants, an Asian American rock band, applied to register the band’s name with the U.S. Trademark Office, but the application was denied. The Office claimed that the name would likely be disparaging towards “persons of Asian descent,” citing the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946, which prohibits trademarks that “[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” Tam appealed to a board within the Office but was again denied. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ultimately held en banc that the Disparagement Clause violated the First Amendment on its face. -- By a vote of 8-0, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Federal Circuit. In an opinion by Justice Alito, the Court held that the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Parts I, II, and III-A of Justice Alito’s majority opinion were joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Thomas joined except for Part II. Parts III-B, III-C, and IV of Justice Alito’s majority opinion were joined by the Chief Justice and Justices Thomas and Breyer. Justice Kennedy filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. -- To discuss the case, we have Michael R. Huston, who is Associate Attorney at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
Jun 29 2017 · 15mins