Federal Circuit Decides Sua Sponte To Consider En Banc Whether The Bar On Registration Of Disparaging Trademarks Violates The First Amendment

Apr 30, 2015

Reading Time : 1 min

In 2010 and 2011, Mr. Tam sought to register the trademark “THE SLANTS” for performances of his Asian-American dance rock band, The Slants. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), the examining attorney refused to register Mr. Tam’s mark because it was disparaging to people of Asian descent. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) affirmed and Mr. Tam appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the term “slants” has many meanings and was not disparaging. Mr. Tam also argued that the statute is unconstitutional under, inter alia, the First Amendment, because it conditions a benefit (trademark registration) on relinquishment of speech. The Federal Circuit applied its two-part test from In re Geller, 751 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014), and found substantial evidence, based largely on Mr. Tam’s own submissions, that the term “slants” in this case likely referred to people of Asian descent, and the mark is disparaging to a substantial composite of people of Asian descent. The court rejected Mr. Tam’s First Amendment challenge based on the court’s precedent stemming from In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481 (CCPA 1981). Bound by its precedent, the panel affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register Mr. Tam’s mark. Judge Moore, the author of the panel opinion, also authored “additional views,” further analyzing the First Amendment issue and questioning the continuing propriety of McGinley.

One week after the panel opinion, the full court ordered the case to be heard en banc. The court requested that the parties file new briefs addressing a single question: whether the bar on registration of disparaging marks in 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) violates the First Amendment. The Federal Circuit will entertain amicus briefs, and will likely hear oral argument later this year or early next year.

In re Tam, No. 2014-1203 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 27, 2015) (per curiam Order).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The Northern District of Illinois recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice for failing to plausibly allege patent infringement. The court found that the allegations of direct infringement were insufficiently pled where the images of the accused product included in the complaint did not appear to show a particular necessary element of the claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

March 12, 2026

The District of New Jersey recently denied the litigants’ request for a briefing schedule to resolve a dispute about a proposed discovery confidentiality order, and also denied extending the deadlines for the defendants’ invalidity and non-infringement contentions. At issue was the scope of the FDA and patent prosecution bars in the confidentiality order.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 27, 2026

The USPTO Director denied a patent owner’s request for discretionary denial of two inter partes review (IPR) petitions, citing the petitioner’s “well-settled expectation” that it would not be accused of infringing the two challenged patents. The Director’s conclusion was based on the petitioner’s decade-long business relationship with the original owner of the challenged patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

February 24, 2026

The Southern District of Florida recently dismissed a complaint without prejudice because the allegations used a form of “shotgun pleading.” The court explained that a shotgun pleading includes those where every count incorporates every preceding paragraph into each cause of action, and that dismissal of such pleadings was required under Eleventh Circuit precedent.

...

Read More

© 2026 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.