The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has struck down a provision of that country’s trademark statute, the Lanham Act, for violating the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. The provision in question is the “disparagement” clause, which barred the registration of any trademark “which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” (§1052(a)).

The long-simmering issue of the constitutionality of this provision came to a head in two recent high profile cases, only one of which was before SCOTUS. The case heard by SCOTUS was Matal v. Tam, and it involved the Asian dance band The Slants, which had unsuccessfully sought to register their name as a trademark. The band’s name uses a common racial slur, but their objective in registering the name was “to “reclaim” and “take ownership” of stereotypes about people of Asian ethnicity.” (at p. 7) The other case, which had been put on hold by an appellate court pending the decision of SCOTUS in Matal v. Tam, involved the infamous name of the Washington D.C.’s football team, the Redskins. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board had ruled that this name was disparaging of Native Americans, and ordered it struck from the register. This decision had been upheld by a court in review, and was under appeal. As a result of the decision in Tam, this name will undoubtedly be allowed to stand.

In a nutshell, a unanimous SCOTUS ruled that the disparagement clause prohibited certain forms of speech, and confirmed that “[s]peech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.” (pp. 1-2) The court easily rejected a series of arguments by the U.S. government to the effect that trademarks were government and not private speech; that trademarks were a form of government subsidy; or that trademark registration was a kind of government program. It came back to the view that the case was simply a matter of “viewpoint discrimination” – in other words, that some speech was being banned by government because of the point of view that it expressed. Justice Alito, writing the majority opinion, firmly stated that a government attempt to prevent the expression of ideas that offend “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment.” (at p. 25) He noted that the clause was so broadly worded that it prohibited disparagement on any basis, suggesting that it could be applied to trademarks such as “Down with racists” or “Down with sexists” (not, of course, that this has ever happened). He characterized it as “not an anti-discrimination clause; it is a happy-talk clause”. (at p. 25) Justice Alito noted that as drafted, the “clause protects every person living or dead as well as every institution.” (at para 26) The court found the provision unconstitutional regardless of whether it was characterized as commercial speech (which carries a lower level of scrutiny than, for example, political expression). He wrote: “The commercial market is stacked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates.” (at para 26) He observed that free speech would be endangered if “affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social “volatility”.” (at para 26)

This decision ends a long saga involving offensive trademarks in the United States. In the Canadian context, a provision in the Trade-marks Act that effectively prohibits the adoption, use or registration of a trademark that is “scandalous, obscene or immoral” (s. 9(1)(j)) has yet to be properly tested in court or measured against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Given the erratic history of the use of the provision (see my post here), it undoubtedly violates the freedom of expression, and would be difficult to save under section 1 as a reasonable limit, demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. This raises the question of what other means are available to address offensive speech in trademarks. In the U.S. many have argued that this is an issue for the market to decide; if a mark is sufficiently offensive, consumer repugnance will lead to a failure of the product or service or force the trademark owner to change the mark. Given the long history of sports team names and logos such as those of Washington D.C.’s NFL team and Cleveland’s Major League Baseball team, this is a questionable theory. The disparagement of minority groups is not easily addressed by market forces if the majority is indifferent to or complicit in the offense.

In Canada, the answers may come from outside trademark law. Certainly there are hate speech laws in Canada that might apply to the adoption of highly offensive trademarks. The human rights challenges brought by indigenous activist Douglas Cardinal against Rogers, Major League Baseball and the Cleveland baseball franchise (see my post here) are well worth watching. If these claims eventually succeed, they may provide another route by which some trademarks (at least those associated with the provision of services covered by human rights legislation) may be challenged.