Posts Tagged: "In re Brunetti"

Federal Alcohol Labeling Following Tam and Brunetti

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently struck down certain trademark registration requirements on First Amendment grounds. These cases raise questions about whether similar alcohol labeling requirements likewise violate the First Amendment. In the U.S., alcohol is a regulated product at both the state and federal level. Federally, the Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act) sets forth the labeling requirements for distilled spirits, wine and malt beverages. Alcohol producers must get alcohol labels approved by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). These approvals come in the form of a Certificate of Label Approval/Exemption or “COLA.” The labeling requirements of the FAA Act are detailed in 27 U.S.C. §205(e) and prohibit labels that “are disparaging of a competitor’s products or are false, misleading, obscene, or indecent…” See 27 U.S.C. §205(e)(4). The associated rules are promulgated in 27 C.F.R. Parts 4, 5, and 7. These rules similarly prohibit statements on labels that are “disparaging of a competitor’s products,” or which are “obscene or indecent.” 27 C.F.R. §4.39, §5.42, and §7.29.

Michael Colitz, III & Elizabeth DeConti

May 21, 2019

Supreme Court Asked to Consider Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks

On September 7, 2018, the government filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the case relating to Eric Brunetti’s clothing brand, called FUCT. Although Brunetti has marketed various apparel under the FUCT mark since the early 1990s, the application at issue in this case was filed in 2011. The examiner rejected the application under Section 2(a), finding that FUCT “is the past tense of F*CK,” and “is scandalous because it is disparaging and [] total[ly] vulgar.” The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed, finding that “the Trademark Examining Attorney has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that a substantial composite of the general public would find this designation vulgar.” If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear the Brunetti case, it could have a substantial impact on “shock value” marks in commerce.

Brian Iverson

October 11, 2018

Matal v. Tam: What’s New and What to Watch in Registration of Disparaging, Immoral, and Scandalous Trademarks

Many other related issues remain ripe for consideration in Brunetti and future cases. Most significantly, are trademarks considered “commercial speech?” If so, laws relating to trademarks might be subject to relaxed scrutiny for constitutional compliance rather than strict scrutiny… While Tam settled some issues related to The Slants, the Washington Redskins, and D*kes on Bikes, the decision’s full impact remains to be seen. Brunetti seems to be a promising avenue for the Supreme Court to address some of the tangential issues left open by the Tam decision.

Brian Iverson

September 28, 2018

Disparaging, Immoral, and Scandalous Trademarks Since Matal v. Tam

A little more than one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause as unconstitutional in Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (June 19, 2017). While Tam settled some issues related to The Slants, the Washington Redskins, and D*kes on Bikes, the decision’s full impact remains to be seen. Issues remain ripe for future consideration. Most significantly, are trademarks considered “commercial speech?” If so, laws relating to trademarks might be subject to relaxed scrutiny for constitutional compliance rather than strict scrutiny.

Brian Iverson

August 11, 2018

Prohibition of Immoral or Scandalous Trademarks Held Unconstitutional

In re Brunetti, the Federal Circuit reversed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision affirming a refusal to register the mark “FUCT” because it comprised immoral or scandalous matter under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) (“Section 2(a)”). While the Board properly relied on substantial evidence to support its conclusion, the bar against registering immoral or scandalous marks was held to be an unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

Robert Schaffer & Joseph Robinson

December 26, 2017