Iancu v. Brunetti
Headline: Court strikes down federal ban on registering “immoral or scandalous” trademarks, allowing applicants to seek registration for marks previously blocked and changing how the trademark office will decide offensiveness.
Holding: The Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering "immoral or scandalous" trademarks violates the First Amendment because it discriminates based on viewpoint, so the provision must be invalidated.
- Prevents PTO from denying registration as "immoral or scandalous" under the statute.
- Allows applicants to seek federal registration for marks previously rejected on that ground.
- May prompt Congress to write a narrower law targeting vulgar or obscene marks.
Summary
Background
An artist and clothing entrepreneur used the brand name FUCT and applied for federal trademark registration. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused the application under a federal rule that bars marks that are "immoral" or "scandalous." The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board called the mark "vulgar" and offensive. The Federal Circuit found that prohibition violated the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court agreed on review, affirming that judgment.
Reasoning
The central question was whether the statutory ban treats some ideas worse than others. The Court said the law is viewpoint-based because its language and the PTO’s application favor messages that fit conventional moral standards and disfavor messages that defy them. The Government urged the Court to narrow the law to cover only vulgar or sexually explicit words, but the majority would not rewrite the statute. Because the ban discriminates by viewpoint and reaches many ideas, the Court held it unconstitutional and overbroad.
Real world impact
As a result, the trademark office can no longer refuse registrations simply because a mark is labeled "immoral or scandalous" under the statute as written. Registration remains voluntary and still offers extra legal benefits, but applicants previously blocked on that ground may now seek registration. The Court noted Congress could enact a narrower rule; some Justices urged that approach.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Alito, Roberts, and Breyer agreed the decision invalidates the statute but differed about rescue options. Alito stressed the harm of viewpoint discrimination but said Congress could ban purely vulgar terms. Roberts and Breyer would have narrowed "scandalous" to obscene, vulgar, or profane marks and left that narrower bar intact.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?