Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf
Page Number: 4

2 

IANCU v. BRUNETTI 

Opinion of the Court 

ent  1.    But  you  might  read  it  differently  and,  if  so,  you 
would hardly be alone.  See Tr. of Oral Arg. 5 (describing 
the brand name as “the equivalent of [the] past participle 
form  of  a  well-known  word  of  profanity”).    That  common 
perception caused difficulties for Brunetti when he tried to 
register  his  mark  with  the  U. S.  Patent  and  Trademark 
Office (PTO).

Under  the  Lanham  Act,  the  PTO  administers  a  federal 
registration  system  for  trademarks.    See  15  U. S. C. 
§§1051,  1052.    Registration  of  a  mark  is  not  mandatory.
The  owner  of  an  unregistered  mark  may  still  use  it  in 
commerce and enforce it against infringers.  See Tam, 582 
U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 4).  But  registration gives trade-
mark owners valuable benefits.  For example, registration
constitutes  “prima  facie  evidence”  of  the  mark’s  validity.
§1115(a).  And  registration  serves  as  “constructive  notice 
of  the  registrant’s  claim  of  ownership,”  which  forecloses 
some defenses in infringement actions.  §1072.  Generally,
a trademark is eligible for registration, and receipt of such
benefits, if it is “used in commerce.”  §1051(a)(1).  But the 
Act  directs  the  PTO  to  “refuse[ ]  registration”  of  certain 
marks.  §1052.  For  instance,  the  PTO  cannot  register  a 
mark  that  “so  resembles”  another  mark  as  to  create  a 
likelihood  of  confusion.   §1052(d).   It  cannot  register  a
mark that is “merely descriptive” of the goods on which it 
is  used.  §1052(e).  It  cannot  register  a  mark  containing
the  flag  or  insignia  of  any  nation  or  State.    See  §1052(b).
There are five or ten more (depending on how you count).
And  until  we  invalidated  the  criterion  two  years  ago,  the 
PTO could not register a mark that “disparage[d]” a “per-
son[ ], living or dead.”  §1052(a); see Tam, 582 U. S. ___. 

This case involves another of the Lanham Act’s prohibi-
tions  on  registration—one  applying  to  marks  that 
“[c]onsist[ ]  of  or  comprise[ ] immoral[ ]  or  scandalous  mat-
ter.”  §1052(a).  The  PTO  applies  that  bar  as  a  “unitary 
provision,”  rather  than  treating  the  two  adjectives  in  it