WASHINGTON, DC — The Rutherford Institute is challenging a federal statute that allows the government to reject trademark applications for names that might be offensive to certain persons or groups. In coming to the defense of “The Slants,” an Asian-American dance rock band whose trademark application was denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) on the grounds that the trademark might disparage or offend persons of Asian heritage (even though the applicant himself is of Asian heritage), Rutherford Institute attorneys argue that the statute openly discriminates against speech on the basis of content and viewpoint, violating the most fundamental constitutional guarantees to freedom of expression.
In filing an amicus brief In re: Simon Shiao Tam, Institute attorneys have asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to declare the statute void and unenforceable in violation of the First Amendment. A decision in the case will affect not only the registration of “The Slants” trademark, but also the registration of the profession football team trademark “Redskins” which is currently subject to a challenge as disparaging of Native Americans.
“Whether the debate is over a trademark for the Slants or the Redskins, or a specialty license plate for the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the sticking point remains the same: how much do we really value the First Amendment, and how far are we willing to go to protect someone else’s freedom of speech, even if that speech might be offensive to some?” asked constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Civility is little more than political correctness in disguise. The end result remains the same: outright censorship and the creation of a class system that renders speech perceived as politically incorrect, hateful or offensive as inferior and less entitled to the full protection of the law.”
Simon Shiao Tam is the front man for an Asian-American dance rock band called “The Slants.” Tam, who is of Asian descent and heritage, has previously stated that the reason the name was chosen for the band was that he and the other members wanted to “take on” the stereotypes of Asians and “own them”; the band is proud of their Asian heritage and does not want to hide it from the public. Tam also has indicated that the response he has received to the band’s name from the Asian community has been very positive. Nonetheless, when Tam applied with the PTO to have “The Slants” registered as a trademark, the application was denied under a provision of the federal statutes which allows the PTO to refuse to register a trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises 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 the decision and argued that the statute violated the First Amendment because it discriminated against expression on the basis of the viewpoint of the speaker and was unduly vague. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit initially upheld the denial of registration, it agreed to rehear the case. In its amicus curiae brief, The Rutherford Institute argues that the statute is unconstitutional on its face because it discriminates against speech that a government official or body considers inappropriate or offensive. Affiliate attorneys Megan L. Brown, Joshua Turner, Christopher Kelly, Jennifer Elgin, and Dwayne D. Sam of Wiley Rein LLP in Washington, D.C., assisted The Rutherford Institute in advancing the arguments in the Tam brief. The Cato Institute joined with The Rutherford Institute and Wiley Rein LLP in advancing the arguments in the brief.