直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

USPTO Concedes Federal Circuit’s In re Tam Ruling Also Invalidates Lanham Act’s Scandalous and Immoral Ban

February 04, 2016

Authored and Edited by Margaret A. Esquenet

The reverberations of last month’s Federal Circuit decision in In re Tam, which ruled the Lanham Act’s Section 2(a) ban on the registration of “disparaging” trademarks  unconstitutional, are beginning to be felt.  In In re Brunetti, the TTAB had refused the applicant’s trademark application for FUCT as scandalous and immoral, which applicant then appealed to the Federal Circuit. On January 21, 2016, the USPTO conceded in a letter brief that the Federal Circuit’s reasoning in Tam also requires invalidation of the Lanham Act’s  prohibition on the registration of scandalous and immoral marks. Although the USPTO was clear that it believes Tam was wrongly decided, it acknowledged that the Court’s opinion in Tam effectively foreclosed any constitutional distinctions that could be made between the two parts of Section 2(a). Accordingly, the USPTO recommended that the case be remanded to the Board for further proceedings.

The USPTO further noted that it is considering whether to seek review of Tam at the Supreme Court, where it may argue, among other things, that “under reasoning less sweeping than that adopted in Tam, the bar on registration of scandalous and immoral marks would survive even if the bar on registration of disparaging marks were held invalid (or vice versa).” The USPTO’s letter brief makes clear that, though it has lost at the Federal Circuit, it may not be giving up its Section 2(a) fight.

The case is In re Brunetti, No. 2015-1109.

Tags

disparagement, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), In re Tam, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

Related Practices

Trademark and Brand Management

Copyright © 2016 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Articles

EPR Academy, Part 4 of 6: Choosing Between EPR, IPR, PGR, and Reissue

July 1, 2026

Prosecution First Blog

USPTO Tightens “Unintentional Delay” Petitions — 1-Year Time Period Now Triggers Heightened Scrutiny

June 23, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

New Informative Decision Applies the USPTO’s U.S. Manufacturing and Small Business Use of AIA Proceedings Memo

June 18, 2026

Articles

The TAKE IT DOWN Act Is Now in Full Effect: What Platforms Need to Know

June 16, 2026

European IP Blog

UPC Central Division Revokes Patent Covering Covid-19 Treatment Remdesivir

8 June 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Consistency Is Key – USPTO Issues Three New Informative Decisions

May 29, 2026

Articles

The Breakaway Problem: What USA Masters Weightlifting Got Wrong and What Every Splinter Group Should Know

May 29, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a    
§ 325(d) EPR Denial

May 28, 2026

Conference

19th Annual Forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe

May 19-20, 2026

Amsterdam

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP