Source: https://www.mediainstitute.org/2015/12/28/in-re-tam-federal-circuit-vindicates-first-amendment-principles/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 01:47:57+00:00

Document:
As I and other contributors to IP Viewpoints have written in numerous essays over the last year, two fascinating cases have been wending their way through the federal courts testing whether the federal government may deny or cancel trademark registration to racially or ethnically disparaging trademarks, as authorized by Sec. 2(a) of the Lanham Act. One of those cases, In re Tam, involved the government’s refusal to register the mark of the Asian-American rock group, THE SLANTS. The other involves the question of whether the government may cancel the mark of the Washington Redskins professional football franchise. I have taken the position that cancellation of these marks is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and that Sec. 2(a) violates the First Amendment. In the Washington Redskins case, I co-authored an amicus brief with the great First Amendment champion Floyd Abrams, advancing that view.
The en banc decision in In re Tam was a superbly crafted and entirely persuasive vindication of elemental First Amendment principles. The opinion engaged all of the various arguments that have been advanced to defend the Lanham Act’s ban on disparaging trademarks, and meticulously exposed them, one by one, as inconsistent with the core values and principles of the First Amendment.
1. In re Tam, No. 2014-1203, 2015 WL 9287035, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015).
7. In re Tam, No. 2014-1203, 2015 WL 9287035, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015), quoting Forsyth Cty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134, 112 S. Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992).
8. In re Tam, No. 2014-1203, 2015 WL 9287035, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) (“The legal significance of viewpoint discrimination is the same whether the government disapproves of the message or claims that some part of the populace will disapprove of the message. This point is recognized in the Supreme Court’s long-standing condemnation of government impositions on speech based on adverse reactions among the public.”), citing Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 460-61, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011); R.A.V., 505 U.S. 377, 112 S. Ct. 2538, 120 L.Ed.2d 305; Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414, 109 S. Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989).
9. In re Tam, No. 2014-1203, 2015 WL 9287035, at *8 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015).
12. In re Tam, No. 2014-1203, 2015 WL 9287035, at *10 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) (“The point has been recognized in various doctrinal settings. ‘For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited. This would allow the government to produce a result which it could not command directly.’”) quoting Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 597 (1972) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).
13. In re Tam, No. 2014-1203, 2015 WL 9287035, at *10 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015) (“This premise – that denial of a benefit would chill exercise of the constitutional right – undergirds every unconstitutional conditions doctrine case…. ”), citing Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 518, 78 S. Ct. 1332, 2 L.Ed.2d 1460 (1958) (“It is settled that speech can be effectively limited by the exercise of the taxing power. To deny an exemption to claimants who engage in certain forms of speech is in effect to penalize them for such speech.” (citation omitted)); Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Umbehr, 518 U.S. 668, 674, 116 S. Ct. 2342, 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996) (loss of a valuable benefit “in retaliation for speech may chill speech on matters of public concern”); Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 545, 121 S. Ct. 1043, 149 L.Ed.2d 63 (2001); Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 835 (explaining that “[v]ital First Amendment speech principles are at stake here,” including danger arising “from the chilling of individual thought and expression”).
14 In re Tam, No. 2014-1203, 2015 WL 9287035, at *16 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2015).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.