Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 8.0

6 

IANCU v. BRUNETTI 

Opinion of the Court 

ings”;  “excite[s]  reprobation”;  or  “call[s]  out  condemna-
tion.”  Webster’s  New  International  Dictionary,  at  2229. 
Or again, when it is “shocking to the sense of truth, decency,
or  propriety”;  “disgraceful”;  “offensive”;  or  “disreputable.” 
Funk  &  Wagnalls  New  Standard  Dictionary  2186  (1944).
So  the  Lanham  Act  allows  registration  of  marks  when
their  messages  accord  with,  but  not  when  their  messages 
defy, society’s sense of decency or propriety.  Put the pair
of overlapping terms together and the statute, on its face, 
distinguishes  between  two  opposed  sets  of  ideas:  those 
aligned  with  conventional  moral  standards  and  those 
hostile  to  them;  those  inducing  societal  nods  of  approval
and  those  provoking  offense  and  condemnation.    The 
statute favors the former, and disfavors the latter.  “Love 
rules”?  “Always  be  good”?  Registration  follows.  “Hate 
rules”?  “Always be cruel”?  Not according to the Lanham 
Act’s “immoral or scandalous” bar. 
The  facial  viewpoint  bias 

in 
viewpoint-discriminatory application.  Recall that the PTO 
itself  describes  the  “immoral  or  scandalous”  criterion 
using much the same language as in the dictionary defini-
tions recited above.  See supra, at 3.  The PTO, for exam-
ple,  asks  whether  the  public  would  view  the  mark  as 
“shocking  to  the  sense  of  truth,  decency,  or  propriety”; 
“calling  out  for  condemnation”;  “offensive”;  or  “disrepu-
table.”  Brief  for  Petitioner  6  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted).  Using those guideposts, the PTO has refused to
register  marks  communicating  “immoral”  or  “scandalous”
views  about  (among  other  things)  drug  use,  religion,  and 
terrorism.  But all the while, it has approved registration
of  marks  expressing  more  accepted  views  on  the  same
topics.  See generally Gilson & LaLonde, Trademarks Laid
Bare,  101  Trademark  Reporter  1476,  1510–1513,  1518–
1522 (2011); Brief for Barton Beebe et al. as Amici Curiae 
28–29. 

law  results 

in  the 

Here  are  some  samples.  The  PTO  rejected  marks  con-