October Term 2016 · Docket 15-1293
Does the government violate free speech by refusing to register trademarks it finds offensive?
The dispute centers on whether the government can deny trademark registration based on its subjective view of a mark's message.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Malcolm Stewart argued the statute prohibits registering marks that disparage persons or institutions.
The government argued the provision helps further the purpose of trademark protection by preventing disparagement.
Justice Breyer questioned how the disparagement provision relates to the core purpose of identifying product sources.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-48 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 6-16 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 6-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 22-32 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 22-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-10
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Supreme Court examines the constitutionality of a federal law that bars registration of trademarks deemed disparaging.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 22-32 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 22-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 18, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
Simon Tam wants the court to strike down the law that blocked his trademark registration.
The government wants the court to uphold the law that allows it to reject offensive trademarks.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 22-32 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 22-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
What each side says
Tam argues the government cannot deny registration based on its own subjective judgment of a mark's meaning.
The government argues the provision serves a valid purpose by preventing the registration of marks that insult others.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 22-32 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 22-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
What the justices asked
Justice Kagan asked why the government's refusal to register a mark is not a viewpoint-based distinction.
Justice Kennedy asked whether copyright law constitutes a government program subject to these constraints.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-48 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 6-16 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 6-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-10
Why it matters
This case determines whether the government can censor commercial speech by refusing to register trademarks it finds offensive.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 22-32 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 22-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-48 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 6-16 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 6-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 48-50 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 48-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 10-18 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 10-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 4-10
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 42-4 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 42-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 24-48 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 24-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-20 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 4-10 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 4-10
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 22-32 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 22-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 22-32 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 22-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-46 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-46
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.