Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 31.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

1 

Opinion of KENNEDY, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 15–1293 
_________________ 

JOSEPH MATAL, INTERIM DIRECTOR, UNITED 

STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, 

PETITIONER v. SIMON SHIAO TAM 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
 

[June 19, 2017]

 JUSTICE  KENNEDY,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GINSBURG, 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN join, concurring 
in part and concurring in the judgment. 

The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has denied the 
substantial  benefits  of  federal  trademark  registration  to
the mark THE SLANTS.  The PTO did so under the man-
date  of  the  disparagement  clause  in  15  U. S. C.  §1052(a),
which  prohibits  the  registration  of  marks  that  may  “dis-
parage  . . .  or  bring  . . .  into  contemp[t]  or  disrepute”  any 
“persons,  living  or  dead,  institutions,  beliefs,  or  national 
symbols.”

As  the  Court  is  correct  to  hold,  §1052(a)  constitutes 
viewpoint discrimination—a form of speech suppression so
potent  that  it  must  be  subject  to  rigorous  constitutional 
scrutiny.  The  Government’s  action  and  the  statute  on 
which it is based cannot survive this scrutiny.

The Court is correct in its judgment, and I join Parts I,
II, and III–A of its opinion.  This separate writing explains
in  greater  detail  why  the  First  Amendment’s  protections
against  viewpoint  discrimination  apply  to  the  trademark
here.  It submits further that the viewpoint discrimination
rationale  renders  unnecessary  any  extended  treatment  of 
other questions raised by the parties.