friday, 30 september of 2016

Supreme Court to Hear Case on Objectionable Trademarks

The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to decide whether the government can reject trademarks that some people find offensive, accepting a free-speech case that could determine the fate of a legal battle involving the Washington Redskins football team.

The justices, in a brief written order, said they would consider whether the Asian-American rock band The Slants can register a trademark on its name. The group’s frontman, Simon Tam, sought the trademark but was denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which found that people of Asian descent would likely find the band’s name disparaging.

The appeal is one of eight cases the court added to its docket for the 2016-17 term that begins Monday. Another of the new cases asks the justices to decide the level of education local school districts must provide to disabled children under federal law.

Many of the other cases are low-profile matters, an ongoing trend at the court since Justice Antonin Scalia died in February and left the court short-handed with eight justices due to a political stalemate on replacing him.

In the Slants case, Mr. Tam won a key ruling last year when an appeals court, citing the First Amendment, invalidated a provision in the 70-year-old Lanham Act that prohibited the registration of disparaging trademarks. That court said government regulators can’t deny trademark registrations just because they believe the speech will offend others.

The same legal issue is at the center of a similar case involving the Redskins. The Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team’s trademarks in 2014 on the grounds that Native Americans found the team name disparaging. That case is working its way through the lower courts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling in The Slants case will likely determine the outcome of that litigation.

Even without federal trademark registration, a business, organization or person can claim some legal trademark rights to protect a name, logo and other distinguishing features. But federal registration confers significant additional benefits, such as stronger nationwide legal rights, better visibility and assistance from U.S. Customs and Border Protection in stopping the import of counterfeit goods and those that infringe on the trademark.

The Obama administration sought high-court review of The Slants case, saying the appeals-court ruling upended longstanding practices at the Patent and Trademark Office. If the lower-court ruling stands, the government couldn’t “refuse registration as a trademark of even the most vile racial epithet,” the U.S. Solicitor General’s office said in a court brief.

Mr. Tam, despite winning the earlier ruling, agreed the high court should take the case, saying the issue was “undeniably important.”

The musician, in a court brief, said his choice of the name followed a tradition “in which members of minority groups have reclaimed terms that were once directed at them as insults and turned them outward as badges of pride.”

In the education case, the court will review a federal law requiring school districts to provide a “free appropriate public education” to disabled children. Lower courts have disagreed over whether or how far beyond a minimal standard of instruction the law mandates.

The case granted Thursday comes from Douglas County, Colo., where the student, identified as Drew, was diagnosed with autism. Drew’s parents sued when the school district wouldn’t pay for private school, a request some parents make because they think their child needs specialized attention a public school can’t provide. Last year the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver held that local authorities met their obligation without paying for private school. “The child received some educational benefit while in the district’s care and that is enough to satisfy the district’s obligation to provide a free appropriate public education,” the Tenth Circuit ruled.

Other federal appeals courts, however, have read the law differently. The Third Circuit in Philadelphia, for instance, held that disabled children are entitled to taxpayer-funded education that provides “significant learning and meaningful benefit.”

Oral arguments in all of the new cases will likely take place this winter, with decisions from the Supreme Court expected by June 2017.

(Published by The Wall Street Journal - September 30, 2016)

latest top stories

subscribe |  contact us |  sponsors |  migalhas in portuguese |  migalhas latinoamérica