Slashdot Mirror
Federal Circuit Overturns Prohibition On "Disparaging" Trademarks (arstechnica.com)
New submitter flopsquad writes: On December 22, the Federal Circuit released a decision overturning, on First Amendment grounds, the part of US trademark law that prohibits registration of "disparaging" marks. This case concerned the USTPO's refusal to register a mark for the Asian-American band "The Slants". However, the decision will no doubt have wider implications for brands such as the embattled Washington Redskins, whose mark was ordered canceled earlier this year.
I think "The Slants" is a brilliant name!!!
It was the right decision- even jerks need to be allowed freedom of speech. (And I say that as one of the jerks :-) )
I am not a sig.
There goes my team name, "The White Weenie Weenies"
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
No, now where was the required trigger warning before your problematic comment?
I get that "slant-eyed" is a racist description of Asians, but there is absolutely nothing racist about the word "slant". Hell, it even mentions that the band is Asian-American.
Name my band The Illegals?
0. There is no right not to be "offended". However I wonder how this would have gone if it were a hip-hop group calling themselves "The Niggers". Would they have ruled the other way? If they did, would institutional racism (http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/at-the-edge/2015/05/06/institutional-racism-is-our-way-of-life) be to blame for that?
1. Spelling Nazi says: "disparaging" is spelled with one 'r', not two.
You offend me and I would like to see you apologise unreservedly.
I don't even know who "The Slants" is disparaging against. Also, who gets to decide what's disparaging or not? What if someone decides that words like "Christian" are disparaging?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Also, who gets to decide what's disparaging or not?
Nobody anymore, according to the supreme court.
What if someone decides that words like "Christian" are disparaging?
That's why this is a good decision by the supreme court.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
"If you stay here much longer, you will go home with slitty eyes." – Prince Philip, speaking to a British student during a trip to China in 1986.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
Obviously they don't think that it is anymore, but how was it ever?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
... the USTPO's ...
Err... that's the United States Patent and Trademark Office, not the Undergraduate Student Toilet Paper Ombudsman. Though dealing with either one can be a pain in the ass. ;)
Nothing posted to
Once for me too, please.
First, this wasn't the Supreme Court, it was a District Court. If appealed, SCOTUS could hear it, send it back for reconsideration with comments, or let it stand.
Second, I'm surprised it has taken this long. Does this mean Los Chingaderos (the band) can now get some airplay? Will LMFAO ever be announced using their full name?
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
are the party of hate.
At least this guy does.
It was specifically an issue with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. One of their primary sources cited for denying the trademark for "The Slants" is because of something posted in Urban Dictionary for the term "Slant" and because of their Asian heritage.
America is an extremely racist and intolerant country, where everyone has an inferiority complex.
To me, 'Christian' *is* disparaging, you insensitive clod!
well it's a slippery slope but even that will get you into hot water in the uk media.
Awesome way to handle it, great video!
Actually, it's not a District court, it's a Circuit court. Specifically, it's the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, which has jurisdiction nationwide.
The only step above this is SCOTUS.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
'Christian' is my fucking name, you worthless pile of shit. Yes, it is the name I demand people use whenever I'm fucking them.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
This doesn't affect rules for broadcast content.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
In the context[1] of American culture, politics, and particularly law, freedom of speech means that the _government_ cannot decide what's acceptable or not acceptable.
So in answer to your question, everybody *but* the government can continue deciding what's disparaging or not. And if you're powerful enough (e.g. Facebook because they control a popular, centralized publishing platform, or a popular rock band, because young people value their opinion), you're opinions will matter more than others.
See how that works? It's quite simple. Hopefully you can answer your second question yourself. Just use some logic and some reason.
[1] This is because only[2] the government is considered capable of limiting freedom directly. In other countries, freedom of speech might implicate religious leaders or other people or institutions considered to hold legitimate power to directly control people's behavior. But as a general matter the "thing" we refer to as limiting freedom has some kind of independent agency. Poverty can limit people, but poverty isn't a "thing" that actively limits you.
[2] Implied is that the person being limited has reached the age of legal majority. In the U.S. parents are free, within limits, to control the freedom of their children. But freedom of speech isn't understood to refer to a child's rights, particularly not in a legal context.
That right there is the problem. That's the road that ends with forty years in jail for insulting the king's dog.
It's not disparaging, it's ironic. It's what this country was founded on; we were called Yankee Doodle as an insult and we threw it back at them.
A brilliant stateman, Britain must be proud.
I don't even know who "The Slants" is disparaging against.
I remember reading a story a bout this a while ago. The band is made of members who are all Asian-American and is aplay off of the (somewhat outdated, at least I haven't heard it used in a long time) derogatory term "slant-eyed". Their whole argument at the time basically boiled down to "how can we disparage ourselves?".
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Their whole argument at the time basically boiled down to "how can we disparage ourselves?".
This isn't my joke, and I'm paraphrasing here.
Nowa days, you're only allowed to make fun of a group of people if you belong to that group. Blacks can make fun of blacks, gays can make fun of gays, and so on.
So these two pedophiles walk into a bar...
Heh. You'd be surprised. While it doesn't directly do that, it DOES set that most of the rules for content are unconstitutional.
The reasoning is immediately applicable to the content rules.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Sure, but who needs a band called "the Slits" when we have Pussy Riot?
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
One presumes you are asserting the famous Democrat/Liberal/Progressive lie that the Constitution (NOT a Republican-only document) declared blacks to be 3/5ths of a person. People who cite this claim prove themselves to be illiterate morons or totally dishonest. READ the Constitution at least once in your pitiful delusional life.
Here is what it ACTUALLY says:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."
In other words: ANY person of ANY skin color who was not free, not an indentured servant, and not an indian would be counted as 3/5ths for purposes of assigning seats in congress (thus pushing DOWN the power of slave owners who wanted all their slaves to count).
In all the non-slave states, black people were ALWAYS counted as full human beings, had voting rights, and even served in the revolutionary war along side with George Washington - one of these black soldiers is even in the famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware.
History and FACTS matter.
The problem with that argument is that you can make it almost anywhere because it is always safer not to risk making people angry. For example in the US any member of the public might be carrying a gun and if they saw something which made them angry they might shoot someone. So you'd better not allow any signs anywhere which might offend someone. Then of course they might overhear something so better ban that type of speech as well and pretty soon you can kiss all your freedoms goodbye.
While what you said is true, but it could be read that they have jurisdiction over the district courts which isn't right.
So in an effort to further enlighten anyone who may be interested, here is a picture of the US court system hierarchy:
http://wlwatch.westlaw.com/aca/west/uscourt.htm
But you could go for "The Untrademarkables".
if you support free speech, you cannot support censorship over selectively "offensive" terms.
One cannot 'disparage' themselves?
The Law, in this instance and others, is an ass.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
I want more of that guy in this world.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Refusing a trademark doesn't prevent the band from using the name. If you consider this a Freedom of Speech issue, then I should also be allowed my own trademark registration that conflicts with an already granted trademark registration, because refusing to grant me the duplicate trademark would similarly be a restriction on my Freedom of Speech. Except that itself is contrary to the concept of Trademark, and legal decisions need to be based on broad principles.
If I understand the case, he got it wrong.
My understanding:
Lanham act (1954) creates the right of federal trademark with limitations to prevent offensive trademarks.
Mr.Tam applies for trademark "Slant Eyes" which trademark office decides is offensive and does not grant.
Judge disagrees saying that the 1st Amendment protects offensive speech.
IMHO, the 1st amendment prevents the govt from stopping offensive speech.
There is no requirement to encourage it.
The Lanham act created a new property right out of thin air.
The Congress had the right to choose what right to create.
They chose to create one that did not encourage offensive speech.
Now the judge says they could not do this.
This makes not encouraging offensive speech become somehow preventing it.
It seems to me that the law should be judged as a whole thing.
The unlikely consequence of this might be that the whole law and the trademark system that depends on it should go.
But it does not seem right that the judge should be able to choose which parts of the law to enforce.
Unless Congress specifically gave the judge that right by saying that if one part of the law is un-constitutional, then the rest can still stand?
I think "The Slants" is a brilliant name!!!
Ya, but it's a slippery slope ...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
How the fuck is this comment "Insightful"?
Is "The Slants" a brilliant name? Fuck no. It's obviously offensive. It's obviously meant to be offensive and for that I can applaud it, but "brilliant"? No, it's not.
Wouldn't "Gooks" or "Spooks" or even "Chinks" be just as "brilliant" in your mind? I think it would be to you. You just want the opportunity to use a racial slur in a context which you would argue is acceptable.
Using racial slurs is anything but "brilliant". You're a fucking moron and so is everyone who rated your comment as "Insightful"
I don't even know who "The Slants" is disparaging against.
Then you're being intentionally ignorant. It's obviously a racial slur against "orientals" - and I use the word "oriental" because when I learned English that meant someone from the far east (China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam - somewhere around that part of the world). "Oriental" didn't used to be a racial slur but now apparently it's deprecated. Okay, fine - I'll say "Asian" if I don't know specifically where someone comes from but "Asian" is a very broad brush. Arabs are Asian. Indians are Asian. Even most of Russia is in Asia. But whatever. Picking on physical features of different ethnicities has always been a mainstay of racists. Whether you're making fun of the way someone's eyes are shaped or how big someone's nose is or how pale someone's skin is - it's obviously meant to be offensive and just because of that, it is.
And "Christian" can be used disparagingly in certain circles. Just because your Christian parents don't take offense at being called Christian doesn't mean that when someone called them that doesn't mean they didn't intend offense.
YouTube® celebrity Charles "The Angry Grandpa" Green can now register the following as trademarks: "God Damn", "Motherfucker", "Gotta Have Your God Damn Souffle...with Sweet 'Tater".
The trigger warning that YOU require is on the clue-by-four whose ballistic impact with your head was triggered by your use of the phrase "trigger warning."
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
What about the 90's band The Breeders?