Master The Supreme Court struck down the Lanham Act's disparagement clause as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment. with this comprehensive case brief.
Matal v. Tam is a landmark Supreme Court decision at the intersection of free speech and trademark law. The case invalidated the Lanham Act's "disparagement clause," which had barred the federal registration of trademarks that disparage or bring into contempt any persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols. By holding that the provision constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination, the Court reaffirmed a core First Amendment principle: the government may not penalize speech simply because it offends.
The decision clarified vital boundaries of the government-speech doctrine and the extent to which the state may condition access to a federal benefits program—here, trademark registration—on content or viewpoint. It also set the stage for subsequent decisions (notably Iancu v. Brunetti) addressing similar restrictions on "immoral" or "scandalous" marks. For law students, Matal v. Tam is essential reading for understanding viewpoint discrimination, the limits of the government-speech doctrine, and the application of First Amendment scrutiny within intellectual property frameworks.
Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Simon Tam, an Asian-American musician, sought to register the name of his band, "The Slants," as a federal trademark. Tam chose the name to reclaim and neutralize a historically derogatory slur against people of Asian descent. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibited registration of marks that may "disparage" or bring into "contempt or disrepute" any persons, living or dead, as well as institutions, beliefs, or national symbols. Applying its longstanding two-part test, the PTO and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board examined dictionary definitions and evidence of usage and concluded that a substantial composite of the referenced group would find the term disparaging. The Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed and held the disparagement clause facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment. On certiorari, the Acting Director of the PTO (Matal) challenged that ruling in the Supreme Court.
Does the Lanham Act's disparagement clause, which prohibits the federal registration of trademarks that may disparage persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
The government may not engage in viewpoint discrimination when regulating private speech. Trademarks are private, not government, speech; registration is not a government endorsement, nor is the trademark registry a government subsidy program or a limited public forum that permits viewpoint-based exclusions. Viewpoint-based burdens on private speech are presumptively unconstitutional and invalid under any applicable level of scrutiny.
Yes. The Lanham Act's disparagement clause is unconstitutional because it impermissibly discriminates based on viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment. The judgment of the Federal Circuit was affirmed.
The Court unanimously concluded that the disparagement clause violates the First Amendment, though the Justices offered slightly different analytic paths. Writing for a plurality in key parts, Justice Alito explained that trademarks, even when registered, constitute private speech. The government-speech doctrine (as in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans) did not apply because the government does not create, edit, or take responsibility for the thousands of marks it registers; registration neither conveys nor implies governmental endorsement. Nor is federal trademark registration akin to a government subsidy or a limited public forum that would permit viewpoint-based distinctions; the program primarily confers legal protections and procedural advantages to facilitate commerce, not to curate a government message or host a forum for expression. The disparagement clause was viewpoint discriminatory because it allowed registration of positive or neutral messages but denied registration when a mark expressed a negative or critical view about a person or group. Such viewpoint discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional and, as Justice Kennedy emphasized in concurrence (joined by Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan), is forbidden even in areas where the government has more latitude to regulate speech. The clause also failed even if treated as a regulation of commercial speech under Central Hudson: the government's asserted interest in preventing offense is not a substantial interest that justifies burdening protected speech, and the provision's sweeping, indeterminate scope was far from narrowly tailored. Justice Thomas concurred to stress that content-based restrictions on speech should be subject to strict scrutiny rather than the commercial speech framework, but he agreed the clause was unconstitutional. Across opinions, the Court rejected the notion that the government may silence or burden speech because it is disparaging or offensive.
Matal v. Tam is a cornerstone First Amendment case on viewpoint discrimination and limits on government control of private speech within a federal benefits scheme. It clarifies that trademark registration is not government speech and cannot be conditioned on ideological neutrality or civility. The ruling reshaped trademark practice by forbidding the PTO from denying registration based on the expressive viewpoint of a mark and influenced subsequent decisions, such as Iancu v. Brunetti, which invalidated the Lanham Act's "immoral or scandalous" bar. For law students, Tam provides a clear template for analyzing government-speech claims, distinguishing subsidies from neutral benefit programs, and applying viewpoint neutrality to content-based regulations.
No. The Court held that trademarks are private speech. Registration does not convert private messages into government speech or imply endorsement; it merely confers legal benefits like nationwide priority and procedural advantages. The government cannot refuse registration based on disagreement with the viewpoint expressed.
The Court unanimously found the clause unconstitutional as viewpoint discrimination, which is impermissible under any standard. The Justices did not produce a single majority opinion on the precise level of scrutiny: a plurality reasoned it failed even under the commercial speech test (Central Hudson), while Justice Thomas would have applied strict scrutiny. Justice Kennedy's concurrence emphasized that viewpoint discrimination is automatically fatal.
The decision undermined the cancellation of the team's registrations, which had been based on the disparagement clause. After Tam declared the clause unconstitutional, related litigation (e.g., Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse) was effectively resolved in favor of the team because the legal basis for cancellation no longer existed.
Not directly. Tam addressed only the disparagement clause. However, its reasoning strongly influenced Iancu v. Brunetti (2019), where the Court struck down the separate "immoral or scandalous" bar as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Yes. The PTO can still refuse marks on viewpoint-neutral grounds, such as likelihood of confusion, deceptiveness, descriptiveness, genericness, functionality, and failure to function as a mark. What the PTO cannot do is deny registration because the mark expresses a disparaging, offensive, or otherwise disfavored viewpoint.
Matal v. Tam reaffirms that the First Amendment's protection of expression extends to contexts where the government administers valuable benefits, like trademark registration. By striking down the disparagement clause as viewpoint discrimination, the Court made clear that the state cannot promote civility by penalizing disfavored ideas, even indirectly through the mechanics of a registration system.
For students of constitutional and intellectual property law, Tam is essential: it delineates the reach of the government-speech doctrine, rejects the transformation of neutral benefit programs into vehicles for ideological curation, and emphasizes that offense alone is not a constitutionally valid basis for burdening speech. Tam's legacy is a stronger, more viewpoint-neutral framework for the regulation of expression within trademark law and beyond.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →