October Term 2018 · Docket 18-302
Can the government deny trademark registration based on offensive words?
The dispute centers on whether the Lanham Act allows the government to reject trademarks it deems scandalous.
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 ban is not a speech restriction.
He stated the provision is viewpoint-neutral on its face.
He claimed it is a valid condition on a federal program.
Mr. Sommer argued the government does not defend the statute's plain language.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 20-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 18-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 18-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-36 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 8-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 8-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 26-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 26-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-32 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-8
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Supreme Court examines a federal trademark law. The law bars registration of marks deemed scandalous. The government argues this rule is viewpoint-neutral. The challenger argues the rule targets specific viewpoints.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 15, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to uphold the denial of registration.
The challenger wants the Court to strike down the scandalous mark provision.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
What each side says
The government argues the law is a valid condition on a federal program.
The challenger argues the government defends a hypothetical statute not enacted.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked how the government defines a scandalous mark.
Chief Justice Roberts asked if the office could deny obscene marks if the government loses.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 20-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 18-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 18-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-36 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 8-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 8-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 26-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 26-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-32 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-8
Why it matters
This case determines if the government can reject trademarks based on offensive content. The outcome shapes the scope of federal trademark registration. It affects how the agency treats marks with controversial language.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
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 20-23 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 18-23 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 18-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-36 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 31-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 31-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 31-8 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 31-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 8-17 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 8-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-28 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 26-27 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 26-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-32 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-32
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 36-8 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 36-8
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 31, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 31, lines 13-7 — Transcript, file page 31, lines 13-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-30 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-30
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.