throbber
No. 15-1293
`
`In the
`Supreme Court of the United States
`
`MICHELLE K. LEE, UNDER SECRETARY OF
`COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
`AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND
`TRADEMARK OFFICE,
`
`v.
`
`SIMON SHIAO TAM,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`Respondent.
`
`On Writ Of CertiOrari tO the United StateS
`COUrt Of appealS fOr the federal CirCUit
`
`BRIEF OF THE RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE
`AND CONSUMERS’ RESEARCH AS AMICI
`CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
`
`John w. whIteheaD
`DougLas r. MCKusICK
`the rutherforD InstItute
`1440 Sachem Place
`Charlottesville, VA 22901
`(434) 987-3888
`
`Joseph CoLangeLo
`ConsuMers’ researCh
`1801 F Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 898-0459
`
`Megan L. Brown
`Counsel of Record
`Joshua s. turner
`ChrIstopher J. KeLLy
`Dwayne D. saM
`John t. LIn
`wILey reIn LLp
`1776 K Street NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 719-7000
`mbrown@wileyrein.com
`
`Counsel for Amici Curiae
`
`December 16, 2016
`269873
`
`A
`
`(800) 274-3321 • (800) 359-6859
`
`

`
`i
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
`
`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`
`ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`I. THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES
`TO THE FEDERAL TRADEMARK
`REGISTRATION REGIME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`
`
`A. Trademarks, Like NAACP, Catholics For
`Choice, And Black Lives Matter, Express
`Identity And Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`
`
`B. Trademark Registration Is Not A
`Subsidy Program, A Funding Limit,
`Or “Government Speech” Exempt
`From The First Amendment. . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`
`
`II. THE DISPARAGEMENT BAR IS A
`DISCRETIONA RY A ND FICK LE
`HECKLER’S VETO, ANATHEMA TO
`THE FIRST AMENDMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`

`
`ii
`
`A. The Constitution Requires The
`Government To Reject The Heckler’s
`Veto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`
`
`
`B. Section 2(A) Provides Government
`Officials Unlimited Discretion To
`Burden Speech They Dislike, Yielding
`Incoherent Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`
`
`III. THE DISPARAGEMENT BAR FAILS
`
`ANY LEVEL OF REVIEW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
`
`A. Str ict Scr utiny Dooms Section
`2(A)’s Cont ent A nd View poi nt
`Discrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
`
`
`
`B. T he Dispa ragement Ba r Fa i ls
`Intermediate Scrutiny Because An
`Interest In Preventing Offense Is Not
`Substantial, And The Bar Does Nothing
`Other Than Chill Expression . . . . . . . . . . .24
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
`
`Table of Contents
`
`Page
`
`

`
`iii
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island,
`
`517 U.S. 484 (1996) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6, 23
`
`Agency for Int’l Dev. v.
`Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc.,
`133 S. Ct. 2321 (2013). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1, 5, 9
`
`
`
`Ashcroft v. ACLU,
`
`542 U.S. 656 (2004) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
`
`Bartnicki v. Vopper,
`
`532 U.S. 514 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
`
`Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens,
`
`496 U.S. 226 (1990). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
`
`Bishop v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
`660 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (W.D. Ark. 2009), aff’d,
`
`
`373 F. App’x 649 (8th Cir. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`Boos v. Barry,
`
`485 U.S. 312 (1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
`
`Brandenburg v. Ohio,
`
`395 U.S. 444 (1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
`
`Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v.
`Public Service Commission,
`447 U.S. 557 (1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
`
`
`
`City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc.,
`
`507 U.S. 410 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`

`
`iv
`
`City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publ’g Co.,
`
`486 U.S. 750 (1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v.
`Greenmoss Builders, Inc.,
`472 U.S. 749 (1985) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
`
`
`
`Edenfield v. Fane,
`
`507 U.S. 761 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25
`
`Edwards v. District of Columbia,
`
`755 F.3d 996 (D.C. Cir. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
`
`Forsyth Cty., Ga. v. Nationalist Movement,
`
`505 U.S. 123 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`In re Geller,
`
`751 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`
`Grayned v. City of Rockford,
`
`408 U.S. 104 (1972) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
`
`Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n, Inc. v.
`United States,
`527 U.S. 173 (1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`
`
`In re Gyulay,
`
`820 F.2d 1216 (Fed. Cir. 1987) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`In re Heeb Media, LLC,
`
`89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1071 (T.T.A.B. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`Heffron v.
`Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc.,
`452 U.S. 640 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
`
`
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`v
`
`Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v.
`Lee,
`505 U.S. 672 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`
`
`Leathers v. Medlock,
`
`499 U.S. 439 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`
`In re Lebanese Arak Corp.,
`
`94 U.S.P.Q.2d 1215 (T.T.A.B. 2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
`
`Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez,
`
`531 U.S. 533 (2001). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`In re McGinley,
`
`660 F.2d 481 (C.C.P.A. 1981) (Rich, J., dissenting). .25
`
`In re Old Glory Condom Corp.,
`
`26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1216, 1993 WL 114384
`
`(T.T.A.B. 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`
`Members of City Council of L.A. v.
`Taxpayers for Vincent,
`466 U.S. 789 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
`
`
`
`Miller v. California,
`
`413 U.S. 15 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
`
`Nat’l Endowment for the Arts v. Finley,
`
`524 U.S. 569 (1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`
`Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson,
`
`283 U.S. 697 (1931) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`vi
`
`New Hampshire v. Maine,
`
`532 U.S. 742 (2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`
`Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n,
`
`475 U.S. 1 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum,
`
`555 U.S. 460 (2009). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
`
`Police Dep’t of Chi. v. Mosley,
`
`408 U.S. 92 (1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
`
`Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse,
`
`112 F. Supp. 3d 439 (E.D. Va. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-4
`
`Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse,
` No. 15-1874, 2015 WL 6854402
`
`(4th Cir. Nov. 6, 2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2, 20
`
`R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul,
`
`505 U.S. 377 (1992). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23
`
`Reed v. Town of Gilbert,
`
`135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5, 21
`
`Regan v. Taxation With Representation of
`Washington,
`461 U.S. 540 (1983). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
`
`
`
`Reno v. ACLU,
`
`521 U.S. 844 (1997). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14
`
`Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of Blind of N.C., Inc.,
`
`487 U.S. 781 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`vii
`
`Rosenberger v.
`Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia,
`515 U.S. 819 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`
`
`Rumsfeld v.
`Forum for Acad. & Inst. Rights, Inc.,
`547 U.S. 47 (2006). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
`
`
`
`Rust v. Sullivan,
`
`500 U.S. 173 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1, 9, 11
`
`Saia v. New York,
`
`334 U.S. 558 (1948). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Ala.,
`
`394 U.S. 147 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
`
`Simon & Schuster, Inc. v.
`Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd.,
`502 U.S. 105 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 21-22, 23, 25
`
`
`
`Snyder v. Phelps,
`
`562 U.S. 443 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1, 15, 21
`
`Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.,
`564 U.S. 552 (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
`
`
`In re Squaw Valley Dev. Co.,
`
`80 U.S.P.Q.2d 1264 (T.T.A.B. 2006) . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 18
`
`Street v. New York,
`
`394 U.S. 576 (1969) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`viii
`
`In re Tam,
`
`785 F.3d 567 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
`
`In re Tam,
`
`808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2015) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4, 5
`
`Texas v. Johnson,
`
`491 U.S. 397 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
`
`Thomas v. Collins,
`
`323 U.S. 516 (1945) (Jackson, J., concurring) . . . . . .22
`
`Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.,
`
`393 U.S. 503 (1969). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
`
`Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC,
`
`512 U.S. 622 (1994) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22
`
`United States v. Stevens,
`
`559 U.S. 460 (2010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
`
`Virginia v. Hicks,
`
`539 U.S. 113 (2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
`
`Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate
`Veterans, Inc.,
`135 S. Ct. 2239 (2015). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12, 13
`
`
`
`Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the
`Supreme Court of Ohio,
`471 U.S. 626 (1985). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`ix
`
`CONSTITUTIONS
`
`U.S. Const. Amend. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052 (Lanham Act) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1127 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
`
`39 U.S.C. § 403. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10
`
`T R A D E M A R K R E G I S T R A T I O N S A N D
`APPLICATIONS
`
`ACLU, Registration No. 1,876,597 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
` Registration No. 1,902,649 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`BLACK LIVES MATTER, U.S. Trademark
` Application Serial No. 87,098,620 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, Registration
` No. 2,796,790 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3, 7
`
`COCA-COLA, Registration No. 4,019,547 . . . . . . . . . . .13
`
`COCAINE, Registration No. 1,340,874 . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
`
`DYKEDOLLS, Registration No. 3,254,737 . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`DYKE NIGHT, Registration No. 4,146,588. . . . . . . . . .19
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`x
`
`DYKES ON BIKES, Registration No. 3,323,803. . . . .19
`
`FAGDOG, Registration No. 2,828,396 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`FAGDOG, Registration No. 2,926,775 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`FAGDOG, Registration No. 3,174,475 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`FAGDOG, U.S. Trade Application Serial 19
` No. 75/950,535 (filed Mar. 1, 2000) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`FAGDOG, U.S. Trade Application Serial
` No. 76/454,927 (filed Sept. 25, 2002) . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`FAG FOREVER A GENIUS!, U.S. Trademark
`A p p l i c a t i o n S e r i a l No . 8 6 / 0 8 9 , 51 2
`(filed Oct. 11, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`
`
`FAGOUT!,U.S. Trademark Application Serial
` No. 86/107,041 (filed Oct. 31, 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`GANJA UNIVERSITY, U.S. Registration
` No. 4,070,160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
`
`HONKEY KONG, Registration No. 4,388,702 . . . . . . . .3
`
`LEGALIZE ACID, Registration No. 4,395,633 . . . . . .3
`
`MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, Registration
` No. 5,020,556. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`
`NAACP, Registration No. 1,188,182 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`xi
`
`NATIONA L A S SOCI ATION FOR THE
`ADVANCEMENT OF HISPANIC PEOPLE,
` Registration No. 2,523,711 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`PHAG, Reginstration No. 4,135,694 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`QUEER PAL FOR THE STRAIGHT GAL,
` Registration. No. 4,699,581. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
`
`QUEER FOLK, Registration No. 4,742,269 . . . . . . . . .19
`
`TEA PARTY PATRIOTS, Registration
` No. 4,296,739. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
`
`THAT’S SO GAY, Registration No. 4,555,924 . . . . . . . .3
`
`THINK ISLAM, Registration No. 4,719,002 . . . . . . . .13
`
`WAL-MART, Registration No. 1,783,039 . . . . . . . . . . .13
`
`WHITE LIVES MATTER, U.S. Trademark
` Application Serial No. 87,121,838. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`THE YIDZ, U.S. Trademark Application Serial
` No. 77/784,282 (filed July 18, 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . 19-20
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`About Us, Cat hoL IC s f or ChoIC e, http://
`w w w. c a t h o l i c s f o r c h o i c e . o r g / a b o u t /
` default.asp (last visted Dec. 13, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`xii
`
`K. Mettler, Why SPLC says White Lives Matter
`is a hate group but Black Lives Matter is not,
`Washington Post Online (Aug. 31, 2016) https://
`www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/
`wp/2016/08/31/splc-the-much-cited-designator-
`of-hate-groups-explains-why-white-lives-
` matter-is-one/?utm_term=.262ed7c2408b . . . . . . . . .8
`
`NCCB/USCC President Issues Statement on
`Catholics for a Free Choice (May, 10, 2000)
`available at http://www.usccb.org/news/2000/00-
`123.cfm (last visited Dec. 13, 2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8
`
`
`
`Cited Authorities
`
`Page
`
`

`
`1
`
`INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE1
`
`The Rutherford Institute is an international civil
`liberties organization headquartered in Charlottesville,
`Virginia. Founded in 1982 by its President, John W.
`Whitehead, the Institute specializes in providing legal
`representation without charge to individuals whose civil
`liberties are threatened and in educating the public
`about constitutional and human rights issues. Attorneys
`affiliated with the Institute have represented parties
`and filed numerous amicus curiae briefs in the federal
`Courts of Appeals and Supreme Court. The Rutherford
`Institute works to preserve the most basic freedoms of our
`Republic, including the limits placed on government by
`the First Amendment. The Rutherford Institute opposes
`governmental action to burden or censor speech for the
`purpose of protecting the subjective sensibilities of part
`of the audience.
`
`The Rutherford Institute has helped develop key
`First Amendment principles informing the reach of
`government power. See, e.g., Agency for Int’l Dev. v.
`Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2321 (2013);
`Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011); Snyder
`v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011); Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S.
`173 (1991). The Rutherford Institute participated in the
`case below, and in a case raising similar issues in the
`Fourth Circuit, Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, No. 15-
`
`1. Both Petitioner and Respondent have consented to the
`filing of this brief, as evidenced by the letters on file with this
`Court. Pursuant to Rule 37.6, the undersigned hereby affirm that
`no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part and
`no person other than amici or their counsel made a monetary
`contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief.
`
`

`
`2
`
`1874, 2015 WL 6854402 (4th Cir. Nov. 6, 2015), because
`this dispute involves the government’s claim to power to
`judge speech based on viewpoint and content, free from
`First Amendment scrutiny.
`
`Consumers’ Research is an independent educational
`organization whose mission is to increase the knowledge
`and understanding of issues, policies, products, and
`services of concern to consumers and to promote the
`freedom to act on that knowledge without unnecessary
`government interference. Consumers’ Research believes
`that the cost, quality, availability, and variety of goods and
`services available to American consumers are improved
`by greater knowledge and freedom. Consumers have a
`strong interest in receiving non-deceptive commercial and
`other economically motivated speech, which regularly is
`mixed with political and policy ideas. Promoting a robust
`marketplace—of goods and ideas—free from unnecessary
`government control is paramount. Consumers’ Research is
`concerned about the government’s theory of its discretion
`to use the trademark regime to discriminate against
`viewpoints and content, potentially stifling a robust
`marketplace of ideas.
`
`Amici believe that “above all else, the First Amendment
`means that the government has no power to restrict
`expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject
`matter, or its content.” Police Dep’t of Chi. v. Mosley, 408
`U.S. 92, 95 (1972). The government cannot arrogate to
`itself the freedom to disfavor certain messages by turning
`the federal trademark registration into a Heckler’s Veto.
`
`

`
`3
`
`SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT
`
`The Lanham Act’s “disparagement” bar has been
`turned into a weapon against disfavored views, to protect
`groups from perceived offense. The government does not
`deny that it is deciding whether to confer the benefit of
`trademark registration based on whether it believes a
`trademark would cause offense. Instead, the government
`claims that its subjective and inconsistent treatment of
`words and phrases does not affect speech at all.
`
`This is nonsense. Trademarks are protected speech. A
`trademarked name, word, phrase, logo, or design can do far
`more than inform customers or denote origin. As described
`below, registered trademarks cover the waterfront
`of expression: TEA PARTY PATRIOTS 2 political
`organization, MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN3 slogan,
`CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE4 advocacy group, THAT’S
`SO GAY5 news sites, LEGALIZE ACID6 accessories, and
`HONKEY KONG7 band shirts. These examples belie the
`government’s position that trademarks “are not inherently
`expressive.” Pet. Br. at 47. Indeed, the United States has
`argued that trademarks are not intended to “editorialize”
`on culture, politics or philosophy. United States’ Mot.
`for Summ. J. at 1, 24, Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse,
`
`2. Registration No. 4,296,739.
`
`3. Registration No. 5,020,556.
`
`4. Registration No. 2,796,790; see infra at 10.
`
`5. Registration No. 4,555,924.
`
`6. Registration No. 4,395,633.
`
`7. Registration No. 4,388,702.
`
`

`
`4
`
`112 F. Supp. 3d 439 (E.D. Va. 2015) (No. 14-cv-1043) (Dkt.
`No. 109) (“USMSJ”). Indeed, the government’s position
`that certain trademarks are “disparaging” or “offensive”
`confirms that trademarks do convey messages.
`
`“The First Amendment is a limitation on government
`. . . . Its design is to prevent the government from
`controlling speech.” Int’l Soc’y for Krishna Consciousness,
`Inc. v. Lee, 505 U.S. 672, 695 (1992) (Kennedy, J.,
`concurring in judgment). The First Amendment requires
`the government to “show that its action was caused by
`something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort
`and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular
`viewpoint.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.,
`393 U.S. 503, 509 (1969).
`
`Tam’s proposed trademark was denied by the PTO.
`Why? Not because the mark was inaccurate or misleading
`or violated someone’s intellectual property interests. The
`government denied Tam the beneficial trademark status
`routinely afforded others solely because some government
`employees considered “the Slants” to be “offensive” or
`“disparaging” to a subset of Asians.
`
`Tam challenged the decision, and after a panel of
`the Federal Circuit found itself constrained to uphold
`the denial, the en banc Federal Circuit sua sponte
`granted rehearing. The Federal Circuit held that the
`disparagement clause of section § 2(a) of the Lanham
`Act is unconstitutional. The court properly determined
`that § 2(a) should be subject to strict scrutiny because
`it abridges speech based on content and viewpoint. In
`re Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Under
`strict scrutiny, ‘“[c]ontent-based laws—those that
`
`

`
`5
`
`target speech based of its communicative content—are
`presumptively unconstitutional and may be justified only
`if the government proves that they are narrowly tailored
`to serve compelling state interests.”’ Id. (quoting Reed v.
`Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218, 2226 (2015)). The Federal
`Circuit found that § 2(a) is content-based because its
`application depends on the topic discussed and message
`conveyed. Id. at 1335. The court noted that the USPTO
`“reject[ed] marks under § 2(a) when it [found] the marks
`refer[red] to a group in a negative way, but it permit[ted]
`the registration of marks that refer[red] to a group in a
`positive, non-disparaging manner.” Id. at 1336.
`
`The United States has chosen to defend the Lanham
`Act by embracing its new role as the arbiter of taste,
`making the high-minded claim that the government should
`not be required to associate with crude or demeaning
`messages—commercial or otherwise. The United
`States’ position undermines the core role of the First
`Amendment as a check on government power, which this
`Court has applied vigorously. See Reed, 135 S. Ct. at 2227
`(burdening “speech because of the topic discussed or the
`idea or message expressed” is subject to “strict scrutiny”);
`Agency for Int’l Dev., 133 S. Ct. at 2332 (viewpoint-based
`spending condition received First Amendment scrutiny).
`
`Trademark registration is being transformed into a
`Heckler’s Veto to burden messages in an effort to shield
`third parties’ claimed sensibilities. This is anathema to
`the First Amendment. This Court should get the PTO
`out of the business of policing offense and confirm that
`the power of government is not properly deployed to pick
`winners and losers on the playing field of expression or
`commerce. The market, and consumers, benefit from
`robust and vibrant expression.
`
`

`
`6
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I. THE FIRST AMENDMENT APPLIES TO THE
`FEDERAL TRADEMARK REGISTRATION
`REGIME
`
`A. Trademarks, Like NAACP, Catholics For
`Choice, And Black Lives Matter, Express
`Identity And Ideas.
`
`Trademarks are any combination of expression—
`words, symbols, colors or package designs—used to
`identify and distinguish a good or service produced by one
`source from those of other sources. See 15 U.S.C. § 1127.
`While there can be debate over what level of protection
`applies, trademarks are “speech” protected by the First
`Amendment.8
`
`8. The line between commercial and political speech is difficult
`to draw, see, e.g., Pac. Gas & Elec. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 475
`U.S. 1, 10–11 (1986), but “core” commercial speech is characterized
`by a “proposal of a commercial transaction.” City of Cincinnati
`v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410, 422–23 (1993); see also
`Greater New Orleans Broad. Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 527
`U.S. 173, 184 (1999); Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of
`the Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 637 (1985). Where fully
`protected speech mixes with commercial speech, higher scrutiny
`should apply, see 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484,
`501 (1996), and where “the component parts of a single speech are
`inextricably intertwined . . . we apply our test for fully protected
`expression.” Riley v. Nat’l Fed’n of Blind of N.C., Inc., 487 U.S. 781,
`796 (1988). Thus, if a trademark simply identifies goods or services
`for a commercial transaction, it might be appropriate to follow the
`standard of review established in Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp.
`v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980). In this case,
`however, the expressive use of trademarks makes them subject to
`strict scrutiny.
`
`

`
`7
`
`Trademarks are used for more than mere commercial
`transactions. Marks routinely serve to convey group
`identity, including racial, religious, national, political and
`gender affiliations. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
`UNION,9 ACLU,10 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR
`THE ADVANCEMENT OF HISPANIC PEOPLE,11 and
`NAACP12 convey to consumers and the public messages
`about group values and identity. Some might take offense,
`see, e.g., Bishop v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 660 F. Supp. 2d
`1004, 1010 (W.D. Ark. 2009) (person considered t-shirt
`emblazoned with the NAACP as “offensive clothing”),
`aff’d, 373 F. App’x 649 (8th Cir. 2010), but such offense
`confirms that the trademarks convey meaning.
`
`Religious groups—devout and dissenting—register
`trademarks. Consider Catholics for Choice, a dissenting
`group whose mission is “to serve as a voice for Catholics
`who believe that the Catholic tradition supports a woman’s
`moral and legal right to follow her conscience in matters
`of sexuality and reproductive health.”13 Many Catholics,
`including church leadership, take grave “offense” at
`
`9. Registration No. 1,902,649.
`
`10. Registration No. 1,876,597.
`
`11. Registration No. 2,523,711 (cancelled Sept. 26, 2008 for
`failure to file a Declaration of Continued Use).
`
`12. Registration No. 1,188,182.
`
`13. Abo ut Us, Ca t hoL IC s f or C hoIC e, http://w w w.
`catholicsforchoice.org/about/default.asp (last visited Dec. 13, 2016).
`See CATHOLICS FOR CHOICE, Registration No. 2,796,790, for
`“[p]romoting public awareness of political and ethical issues in the
`fields of reproductive rights, women’s rights, family planning, and
`sexually transmitted diseases.”
`
`

`
`8
`
`the claimed affiliation and characterization of church
`beliefs.14 Could the PTO—free from any First Amendment
`scrutiny—deny registration to Catholics for Choice on
`the basis that it might “disparage or falsely suggest a
`connection with” Catholicism or bring Catholic belief “into
`contempt, or disrepute?” The answer, most assuredly, is
`“no.”
`
`Likewise, social justice and political movements
`register trademarks. It would be difficult to justify
`government discretion to deny registration for BLACK
`LIVES MATTER15 or WHITE LIVES MATTER16 on
`the ground that they are offensive, though both have
`been criticized.17 But as explained below, the United
`States argues that the Lanham Act empowers the PTO
`to evaluate speech and burden it based on the subjective,
`potential reaction of third parties.
`
`14. NCCB/USCC President Issues Statement on Catholics
`for a Free Choice (May, 10, 2000) (“the use of the name Catholic
`as a platform for promoting the taking of innocent human life and
`ridiculing the Church is offensive not only to Catholics, but to
`all who expect honesty and forthrightness in public discourse.”)
`available at http://www.usccb.org/news/2000/00-123.cfm (last visited
`Dec. 13, 2016).
`
`15. Serial No. 87,098,620.
`
`16. Serial No. 87,121,838.
`
`17. See, e.g., K. Mettler, Why SPLC says White Lives Matter
`is a hate group but Black Lives Matter is not, Washington
`Post Online (Aug. 31, 2016) https://www.washingtonpost.com/
`news/morning-mix/wp/2016/08/31/splc-the-much-cited-designator-
`of-hate-groups-explains-why-white-lives-matter-is-one/?utm_
`term=.262ed7c2408b
`
`

`
`9
`
`B. Trademark Registration Is Not A Subsidy
`Program, A Funding Limit, Or “Government
`Speech” Exempt From The First Amendment.
`
`Trademark registration offers substantial benefits,
`the denial of which places applicants at a legal and financial
`disadvantage. As a result, the government finds itself
`squarely in the heartland of cases that confirm that the
`First Amendment imposes limits on government action,
`even where the issue is a benefit to which the recipient
`otherwise “has no entitlement.” Agency for Int’l Dev.,
`133 S. Ct. at 2328 (citation omitted); accord Rumsfeld v.
`Forum for Acad. & Inst. Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 59 (2006)
`(“‘[T]he government may not deny a benefit to a person
`on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected
`. . . freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that
`benefit.’”) (citations omitted).
`
`To avoid this, Petitioner argues that its discretionary
`review for offense is simply a “criterion for participation
`in a federal program, not a restriction on speech” at all.
`Pet. Br. at 25. It analogizes § 2(a) to cases that afford
`government leeway to limit support for speech with
`which it does not want to be associated. This attempt
`fails. The government’s theory would free vast and varied
`government activity from First Amendment scrutiny.
`
`Government programs conveying a message may
`make viewpoint-based funding decisions to ensure that
`the government’s message is neither garbled nor distorted
`by the grantee. Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S.
`533, 541 (2001) (citing Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of
`Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 833 (1995)); see also Rust, 500
`U.S. at 194 (“[A] program dedicated to advance certain
`
`

`
`10
`
`permissible goals . . . necessarily discourages alternative
`goals”). The trademark registration process is designed
`to permit private parties to conduct commerce; it is not a
`program designed to convey the government’s message.
`
`The government tries to transform this regime
`into “government speech” by asserting that “owners of
`registered marks are issued certificates in the name of
`the United States, and the government publishes the
`marks and transmits registration information to foreign
`countries.” Pet. Br. 12. This borders on silly. Ministerial
`registration-related activities, like publication in the
`register and the delivery of a certificate, are unlike cases
`in which Congress seeks to control how federal dollars
`are used by private recipients.
`
`Any other conclusion would turn a variety of personal
`and commercial expression into government speech simply
`because they involve registration or interaction with the
`government, such as the use of a government seal. See
`Pet. Br. at 48. Consider a couple untenable implications:
`Could a state deny birth certificates to parents if it finds a
`newborn’s name to be offensive, say by virtue of “cultural
`appropriation”? No. Would the Postal Service, authorized
`to carry first-class mail, 39 U.S.C. § 403, be justified in
`refusing to transmit a letter bearing the government’s
`stamp and insignia if it found the name of the addressee
`disparaging or because the sender was a designated “hate
`group”? No. These hypotheticals underscore the absurdity
`of the government’s casual reclassification of speech as the
`government’s, simply because the government performs
`administrative or ministerial tasks that assist the speech
`in some way.
`
`

`
`11
`
`Trademark registration bears scant resemblance
`to the funding schemes cited by the Petitioner. First,
`although trademark registration confers benefits,
`federal funds are not one. Second, unlike the government
`programs that promote a specific message, Congress did
`not establish trademark registration to further a message
`that requires favoring a viewpoint. C.f. Rust, 500 U.S. at
`192 (permitting a government family-planning program
`to limit abortion-related speech); Nat’l Endowment for
`the Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) (permitting the
`National Endowment for the Arts to subsidize certain
`artistic expression over others).
`
`Even if Section 2(a) were a subsidy program, the First
`Amendment limits its power to discriminate between
`viewpoints. See Regan v. Taxation With Representation
`of Washington, 461 U.S. 540, 550 (1983) (stating that the
`government may not aim subsidies “at the suppression
`of dangerous ideas”); Leathers v. Medlock, 499 U.S. 439,
`447 (1991) (“[D]ifferential taxation of First Amendment
`speakers is constitutionally suspect when it threatens
`to suppress the expression of particular ideas or
`viewpoints”). Imposing burdens on speakers based on the
`content of their speech “may effectively drive certain ideas
`or viewpoints from the marketplace.” Simon & Schuster,
`Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502
`U.S. 105, 116 (1991). That is what the government tries to
`accomplish with the disparagement bar; to use its power
`to register trademarks to burden speech it finds offensive.
`The government cannot have it both ways. If it wants to
`treat the disparagement bar as a subsidy, Pet. Br at 29,
`it must abide the limitations on that power.
`
`

`
`12
`
`The government seeks final refuge in Walker v.
`Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 135 S.
`Ct. 2239 (2015) to claim

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket