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

December 18, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a $20 million jury verdict in favor of a patentee and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the patentee did not own the asserted patents at the time it filed suit and therefore lacked standing.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 17, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision finding claims that had been subject to an ex parte reexamination unpatentable. As a threshold issue, the court held that IPR estoppel under 35 USC § 315(e)(1) does not apply to ongoing ex parte reexaminations. Accordingly, the Patent Office did not err in continuing the reexamination after issuing final written decisions in co-pending IPRs.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 15, 2025

The District of Delaware recently denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s demand for enhanced damages based on willful infringement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, explaining that neither a demand for damages under § 284 nor an accusation of willful infringement amount to a claim for relief that can be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

December 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently denied a petition for a writ of mandamus that challenged the PTO Director’s reliance on “settled expectations” to discretionarily deny two inter partes review (IPR) petitions. In so doing, the court explained that, while it was not deciding whether the Director’s use of “settled expectations” was correct, the petitioner’s arguments about what factors the Director may consider when deciding whether to institute an IPR or post-grant review (PGR) are not generally reviewable and did not provide sufficient basis for mandamus review here.

...

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.