The Supreme Court Says Your Filthy Trademark Is Protected by the First Amendment
A 6-3 ruling says that the First Amendment protects brand names that are considered “immoral” or “scandalous.”
A 6-3 ruling says that the First Amendment protects brand names that are considered “immoral” or “scandalous.”
The Supreme Court rules that the bar on "immoral or scandalous" marks is viewpoint-based, but Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor say that an exclusion of "vulgar or profane" marks would be viewpoint-neutral though content-based. (The other five Justices express no opinion on a hypothetical "vulgar or profane" mark ban.)
The owner of a clothing line asks the Supreme Court to overturn the ban on "scandalous" trademarks because it violates the First Amendment.
The Slants speak with Reason a year after winning the right to use their own name.
Meet Eric Lundgren, who got 15 months in prison for selling pirated Microsoft software that the tech giant gives away for free.
So concludes the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, in rejecting rapper Dr. Dre's trademark claim against OB/GYN -- and OB/GYN-related writer and lecturer -- Draion M. Burch, who calls himself Dr. Drai.
So a Federal Circuit panel held today, answering a question that the Supreme Court's Slants case left open.
He's admitted the gesture is a homage to Spiderman and Dr. Strange. It's also American Sign Language for "I love you."
Bassist Simon Tam talks about his band's Supreme Court fight to trademark its controversial name.
Court says Iowa State University discriminated against student marijuana-policy group based on "political pushback."
The government struggles to justify the rule that stopped The Slants from registering the name of their band.
The Supreme Court should overturn the federal ban on registration of "disparaging" trademarks.
May the govt force be with you.
Release of No Man's Sky was delayed nearly two months.
Lack of permits, not a potential trademark violation, got the parody store shut down
Guys, paper could mean almost anything
Another College Station company filed an application several months earlier
That feature photos of Hooters waitresses, ad was changed to "Kooters" but the photos remained
Use of asset forfeiture to steal a trademark for a symbolic victory is ... new
For being "merely descriptive"
Were the drawn guns really necessary?
Judge rules co-creator's family signed away control in previous agreement
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks