Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2018 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR 
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, PATENT 
AND TRADEMARK OFFICE v. BRUNETTI 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

No. 18–302.  Argued April 15, 2019—Decided June 24, 2019 

Respondent Erik Brunetti sought federal registration of the trademark 
FUCT.  The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied his applica-
tion under a provision of the Lanham Act that prohibits registration 
of  trademarks  that  “[c]onsist[ ]  of  or  comprise[ ]  immoral[ ]  or  scan-
dalous  matter,”  15  U. S. C.  §1052(a).    Brunetti  brought  a  First
Amendment challenge to the “immoral or scandalous” bar in the Fed-
eral Circuit, which invalidated the provision. 

Held:  The  Lanham  Act’s  prohibition  on  registration  of  “immoral[ ]  or

scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. 

In Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, this Court declared unconstitution-
al  the  Lanham  Act’s  ban  on  registering  marks  that  “disparage”  any
“person[ ], living or dead.”  §1052(a).  A divided Court agreed on two 
propositions.    First,  if  a  trademark  registration  bar  is  viewpoint 
based, it is unconstitutional.  And second, the disparagement bar was 
viewpoint based.

The  “immoral  or  scandalous”  bar  similarly  discriminates  on  the 
basis of viewpoint and so collides with this Court’s First Amendment
doctrine.    Expressive  material  is  “immoral”  when  it  is  “inconsistent 
with rectitude, purity, or good morals”; “wicked”; or “vicious.”  So the 
Lanham  Act  permits  registration  of  marks  that  champion  society’s 
sense  of  rectitude  and  morality,  but  not  marks  that  denigrate  those 
concepts.  And material is “scandalous” when it “giv[es] offense to the 
conscience  or  moral  feelings”;  “excite[s]  reprobation”;  or  “call[s]  out 
condemnation.”    So  the  Lanham  Act  allows  registration  of  marks 
when their messages accord with, but not when their messages defy,