Source: https://www.blackadarlaw.com/?offset=1502381280463
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 17:00:51+00:00

Document:
You want to know what the funny part is? I spent roughly seven hours drawing this, only to learn afterward that Gene Simmons withdrew his application three days ago.
It's funny: now that I'm out of law school, I enjoy reading Supreme Court cases.
Anyway, the day of reckoning is finally upon us. Matal v. Tam (formerly Lee v. Tam) has just been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States: the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. I’m not too surprised by this outcome and, personally, I think the Court came to the right decision.
First, by way of background for those who aren’t familiar with this case, The Slants are an all Asian-American dance rock band based in Portland, Oregon. Their name is partially derived from the anti-Asian slur referring to the shape of their eyes. Simon Tam, the founder and bassist for the band, applied to register the “The Slants” at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The examining attorney refused to register the mark on the basis that it disparaged Asian people in violation of section 2(a). Tam appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which affirmed the decision of the examining attorney. Tam further appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which heard the case en banc, meaning that the entire court heard the case, rather than the three-judge panel typical of hearings before U.S. Courts of Appeals. The Federal Circuit ruled in Tam’s favor, finding that the disparagement clause is unconstitutional under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Finally, then-Director of the USPTO, Michelle Lee, petitioned the Supreme Court, and the Court granted cert.
In short, the Supreme Court agreed that the disparagement clause is unconstitutional because it isn’t “viewpoint-neutral.” The Courts are very reluctant to uphold a law that restricts speech based on its content. This includes laws that favor or discourage a particular viewpoint. In Tam’s case, the Court concluded that “The Slants” and similar offensive or hateful language is a viewpoint, and by refusing to register it, the government took a side. The Court rejected the government’s arguments that (1) trademarks are government speech (they aren’t); (2) trademarks are a form of government subsidy (they aren’t); and (3) that the Court should adopt a new test to determine the constitutionality of the disparagement clause (it shouldn’t).
So The Slants will likely get their trademark registration, provided there are no further substantive problems with the mark.
[T]he proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” Lee v. Tam, 582 U.S. _ (2017) (quoting United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)).
It isn’t the government’s place to police unpopular, offensive, or hateful ideas – it’s the people’s. Those of us who abhor hateful speech have to counter it with our own speech, and hope that when it all shakes out, the majority of people are well-meaning, rational, and on our side. I get it, though. It's 2017. Simon Tam might be a special case – not everyone who adopts an ethnic slur is a marginalized minority doing so with the intention of co-opting it. Did the Supreme Court just open the floodgates and permit the U.S. Trademark Register to become a wretched hive of scum and villany?
Here’s the thing: first, Brandenburg v. Ohio has been on the books for almost 50 years now. National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 40 years (40 years last Wednesday – spooky). People know that protected free speech includes hate speech. Have you read YouTube comments before? People know.
Second, I’m going to assume that the small number of opportunists who, inspired by this decision, decide to apply to register a hateful mark solely for the purpose of being hateful probably don’t understand federal trademark registration procedure. It’s a legitimate legal proceeding not unlike filing a lawsuit. U.S. trademark registrations and applications are public record, including the applicant’s name and address. Even if someone pays the $225-600 filing fee, fully expecting to abandon the application, the record is permanent. For the even smaller number of folks who intend for their marks to register, they have to show use in commerce, meaning that at some point they have to transact business using that mark and submit proof, which also becomes public record. If someone really wants their name or business to be permanently associated with a hateful mark, fair enough. For most, though, I imagine it isn’t preferable.
It’ll be interesting to see where trademark law goes from here (if anywhere). I believe the Redskins appeal was stayed pending the outcome of this lawsuit, so that case might be decided soon now that there's guidance from the Court.
As always, if you have any questions about trademarks, contact me!
You can read the full Supreme Court Opinion here!
For more legal scholarship regarding the Tam case, SCOTUSBlog has some solid coverage, as well as all of the amicus briefs if you're a real Constitutional law junkie.
On Thursday I had the privilege of giving a presentation on intellectual property law along with my friend, Michael Gu, to some of the small business owners at Boston SCORE. We covered patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. Here’s a quick recap of some of the main takeaways.
Trademark rights arise from use, whether your mark is registered or not. If you’re using your trademark on a "common law" basis (using it without registering it), your rights cease when your use ends. Even if you have a registered trademark, your registration will be cancelled if you fail to show proof of continued during your renewal period.
Check out my AIGA presentation recap for an overview of basic copyright law.
“Anything under the sun that is made by man” may be patentable. However, patents don’t protect abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. Moreover, the invention must be useful, novel, and non-obvious.
Patents grant the exclusive right to exclude others from making and using your patented invention. The right must be affirmatively asserted, it isn’t automatic. The right is also limited in geographic scope: a U.S. patent cannot be enforced outside of the U.S.
Visit www.uspto.gov/patent or contact a licensed patent agent or patent attorney for more information.
A trade secret is information that (1) derives independent economic value from its not being generally know and not being readily ascertainable by other persons; and (2) is subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy.
While many states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in some form, a number of states, including Massachusetts, have not. Some protect trade secrets by separate statute, and others protect them under common law.
This was another fun presentation with a very active audience. My Kevin James joke bombed – I guess even I can’t make Paul Blart funny, but you can’t win ‘em all. Thanks again to Boston SCORE for letting us give the presentation, and thanks to Harvard Ed Portal for letting us use their cool location.
As always, if you have any questions about copyright or trademark, don’t hesitate to contact me!
What this means is that, generally, the words following “hashtag” or “#” have to be registrable as a trademark. Here are a couple of examples of registered hashtag marks from the USPTO: #VISIONISCOOL (optometry and ophthalmology services); #WERUNTOGETHER (charitable fundraising and athletic event promotion); #WHITEANDWOKE (clothes); #INSTAREADY (cosmetics); #GOBOWLSDEEP (juice bar).
In short, hashtag marks can function as trademarks and can potentially be registered at the USPTO. Personally, given that technology changes so frequently and that social networks come and go along with it, I wonder if registering hashtag marks is worth the expense. I would venture a guess that in 5-10 years, Twitter and Instagram will be replaced by yet another service, possibly one not using hashtags, and when those hashtag marks are up for renewal at the USPTO, the $300+ per class maintenance fees won’t be #worthit.
Registration No. 4657888. Goods and services: "Prepared entrees consisting primarily of mashed potatoes with turkey meat and stuffing that is breaded and fried." Ball jokes and your Thanksgiving staples rolled together into one conveniently-shaped, fried appetizer. That's good old fashioned American efficiency at its best.
Serial No. 78200511. This is probably my favorite one solely because of the claimed goods and services: simply "cake." What kind of cake? Was it a meat pie kind of thing? Maybe it was a union between the holiest of desserts: pumpkin pie and pecan pie. We'll never know because the mark was abandoned on November 26, 2004 -- literally the day after Thanksgiving.
On that note, I hope you have a happy and safe holiday. Remember, when that uncle (you know the one) starts talking politics, you can always "help with the turkey" (hide in the bathroom on Twitter until dinner is ready), "check on that pie [you] left in the oven" (play with the family pet in the guest room), or "help with the dishes" (run--just keep running and never look back).
One Wing to Rule Them All: TTAB Cancels Mark for "LORD OF THE WINGS"
I’ll be honest: when I first saw there was a case involving a trademark for “LORD OF THE WINGS,” I thought it’d be worthy of a silly tweet at best. Then I saw that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the TTAB) issued a 37-page opinion cancelling the mark. There was no way I wasn't going to give it a look, and it actually had some interesting discussion. So let’s dive into a case about swords, sorcery, and spicy chicken wings.
The petitioner, the Saul Zaentz Company, owns the film, stage, and merchandising rights to – you guessed it – The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy. As you might expect, the petitioner wasn’t particularly amused with the respondent's mark, and consequently petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to cancel the registration. The petitioner raised four bases for cancellation: (1) likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(d); (2) dilution by blurring under Section 43(c) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c); (3) false suggestion of a connection under Section 2(a) of the Trademark Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a); and (4) abandonment. The TTAB ultimately concluded that the LORD OF THE WINGS mark would indeed cause confusion under section 2(d), and saw it unnecessary to address the three remaining arguments.
More than anything else, trademarks are consumer protection tools. They indicate the source of goods or services, allowing us to make (somewhat) informed purchasing decisions. To that end, when registering a trademark, the last thing an applicant wants is for its mark to be deemed “confusing.” A confusing mark is a mark that may cause a consumer to misattribute the source of the goods or services. In the case here, the petitioner was concerned that patrons of the Lord of the Wings restaurants might inaccurately assume that the restaurants are associated with official Lord of the Rings brands.
In determining whether a mark is likely to cause confusion under section 2(d) of the Trademark Act, courts and the USPTO consider a set of factors called “the du Pont factors,” named for case, In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1362 (C.C.P.A. 1973). There are thirteen du Pont factors in total, but in this particular case, the TTAB only saw need to analyze six: (1) the fame of the LORD OF THE RINGS marks; (2) the similarity or dissimilarity of the opposing marks; (3) the number and nature of similar marks in use on similar goods; (3) the variety of goods and services on which a mark is or is not used; (4) the relatedness of the goods and services; (5) the similarity of trade channels and classes of purchasers; and (6) the nature and extent of any actual confusion.
Relying on the sales and advertising figures, as well as critical acclaim received by the Lord of the Rings books, films, and video games, the TTAB determined that the LORD OF THE RINGS mark is famous. This isn’t simply an accolade -– here, “fame” extends the scope of trademark protection to “a vast array of collateral or merchandising goods and services that are purchased because they bear the LORD OF THE RINGS trademark . . .” That seemingly unrelated merchandise? You know, the board games, costumes, action figures, coffee mugs, etc.? Fame allows the petitioner here to extend trademark protection to those "collateral" goods bearing the mark.
The TTAB also found the standard character (non stylized) LORD OF THE RINGS mark to be substantially similar to the LORD OF THE WINGS mark. They look and sound virtually the same, and consumers may overlook the one letter difference. Moreover, the stylized element in THE LORD OF THE WINGS mark, the two wings, fails to distinguish it. The TTAB held that the words are more likely to make an impression upon purchasers, be remembered by them, and be used by them. Additionally, because the LORD OF THE RINGS mark is a standard character mark, it can be displayed in any font or style, including the style of the respondent's mark.
The respondent tried to argue that cancellation of its mark would foreclose registration of similar marks, such as “Lord of the Swings” or “Lord of the Stings.” The TTAB found the argument lacking, as it was based on purely hypothetical marks.
Incidentally, "Lord of the Stings" would have been a fantastic name for The Pain from Metal Gear Solid 3.
The respondent's argument that other third-party marks bear the phrase “Lord of the . . .” was similarly rejected. The marks – “Lord of the Flies,” “Lord of the Dance,” “Lord of the World,” and “Lord of the Fries” – are not as similar to the LORD OF THE RINGS mark, and four marks don't exactly suggest widespread and significant use of the “Lord of the . . .” construction.
The TTAB found that this factor weighed heavily in favor of the petitioner, because THE LORD OF THE RINGS marks had been licensed on a wide variety of products and services.
This is the factor in which the respondent must have believed its mark would shine. The LORD OF THE WINGS mark was only registered for use in connection with food and food service, and the LORD OF THE RINGS marks had, allegedly, never been registered for such use. The petitioner, however, argued that it owns several Lord of the Rings-related marks used in connection with food and restaurant services and has licensed many more.
Only if my pizza is prepared and served to me by Elijah Wood.
The TTAB found that the goods and services are in fact sufficiently related. The petitioner had already licensed a number of other marks from the Lord of the Rings universe for food and restaurant services. More importantly, at the end of the day, customers dining at Lord of the Wings locations would probably assume that the restaurant was officially licensed.
Here, the TTAB found that both the petitioner’s and the respondent’s goods and services move in some of the same channels and are marketed to the same consumers, particularly because they use the same advertising channels: the internet, including sites like Facebook,, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram.
The respondent also asserted that it has used its LORD OF THE WINGS mark internationally since 2006 without encountering any confusion. This could have weighed in its favor, but the TTAB found that there wasn’t ever any significant opportunity for actual confusion. The respondent's mark was originally issued in Lebanon, and it had been used in a number of middle-eastern countries. The mark "arguably" had not yet been used in the U.S. To that end, the TTAB found that the lack of any reported actual confusion favors neither side.
The petitioner also attempted to argue that the respondent acted in bad faith, intentionally hoping to create an association with the famous LORD OF THE RINGS marks. The TTAB, perhaps surprisingly, rejected this argument. In deposition, Marc Moudabber testified that he chose the name “Lord of the Wings” from a shortlist of names. His criteria were only that “wings” had to be in the name and the name had to indicate quality such that the restaurant would be distinct from fast food establishments. “King of the Wings” and “Prince of the Wings” were too similar to Burger King, which already had a strong middle-eastern presence, and “House of the Wings” failed to convey excellent quality. Mr. Moudabber further testified that, though he was aware of the Lord of the Rings films, he hadn’t considered them when he chose with the name.
Use caution when leaning close to famous marks, even distinct goods and services might not help you.
Don’t rely solely on stylization to distinguish your mark. Here, the TTAB essentially ignored the design elements.
If you have any questions, feel free to leave a comment below or contact me!
In case you needed any more reminders that it's an election year, the internets are rife with political cartoons, caricatures, comics, and, of course, memes depicting our much beloved candidates. Have you ever wondered if such depictions are legal? No? Oh... Well, in any case, before you set off to illustrate the next great comic, consider the "right of publicity."
Many states, including Massachusetts, recognize a right of publicity. Generally, the right protects individuals against the unauthorized use of their likeness for another's commercial gain. Some states, like New York, include the right of publicity under a broader right to privacy. Here in Massachusetts, the two interests are kept separate.
Massachusetts provides a statutory right of publicity under Chapter 214, section 3A of the General Laws. Section 3A protects a person from the use of his or her "name, portrait, or picture within the commonwealth for advertising purposes or of the purpose of trade without his written consent." The statute allows a person to enforce their right of publicity by filing a civil lawsuit for injunctive relief (preventing and restraining the use) and for monetary damages. If the defendant knowingly used the plaintiff's name, portrait, or picture without authorization, the court may award the plaintiff treble (triple) damages. It's worth noting that the statute makes no distinctions or exceptions for celebrities or public figures; "any person" may assert the right.
[T]he interest which is protected by G.L.c. 214 s. 3A is the interest in not having the commercial value of one's name, portrait or picture appropriated to the benefit of another. The value of one's name, portrait or picture is not appropriated "when it is published for purposes other than taking advantage of his reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity." Tropeano v. Atlantic Monthly Co., 379 Mass. 745, 749 (1980) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts s 652C, Comment d (1977)).
"New York courts have . . . construed [the New York right of publicity statute] to operate much more broadly . . . . Specifically, it has been held in some circumstances to authorize a remedy against the press and other communications media which publish the names, pictures, or portraits of people without their consent." We decline to apply such a broad interpretation to G.L.c. 214, s. 3A. Id. at 747.
What this means is that if the purpose of your use of the person's name or likeness isn't to advertise or peddle merchandise, then you're probably safe. In Tropeano v. Atlantic Monthly Co., the seminal case on the matter, the Supreme Judicial Court held that The Atlantic Monthly magazine's unauthorized publication of the plaintiff's photo in an article didn’t violate the statute: "The article or story involved, whether it be viewed as an effort to inform or entertain the readership, is a legitimate, noncommercial use." Id. at 751.
That all sounds fine and good, but suppose you’re a freelance illustrator and drawing satirical comics and cartoons is your business. Surely that must be considered a commercial use. Again, not necessarily: the Court further held that "The fact that the defendant is engaged in the business of publishing The Atlantic Monthly magazine for profit does not by itself transform the incidental publication of the plaintiff’s picture into an appropriation for advertising or trade purposes." Id. If I were to venture a guess, the main purpose of your comics is to entertain, not to sell a product.
Additionally, Massachusetts recognizes a "newsworthiness" defense to claims for violation of the right of publicity. The defense applies when the publication "touches upon a matter of 'legitimate public concern.'" Peckham v. New England Newspapers, Inc., 865 F. Supp. 2d 127, 130 (D. Mass. 2012). The defense is still a legal work-in-progress with loosely defined limits – "the 'line is to be drawn when the publicity ceases to be the giving of information to which the public is entitled and becomes a morbid and sensational prying into private lives for its own sake'" Id. at 131 – but it may be available if you find yourself in trouble.
Is it possible to acquire written consent?
What is the ultimate purpose of the use of the person's name or likeness?
Does the use have any newsworthiness?
If you have any questions about the right of publicity, please feel free to contact me!

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 1052
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1052
 § 1125
 § 1052
 v. 
 v. 
 v.