Legal & Social Environments of Business
VerifiedAdded on 2022/08/20
|8
|2087
|16
AI Summary
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Running head: LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
1LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
Issue:
The issue, in this case, was in the cases of denial of trademark rights of a party, where
the government does not have any authority to monitor over the same issue, can be termed as
is an abridgment or curtailment of rights or not.
Rule:
In this case, the rule of the Lanham Act relating to trademark infringement on
disparaging as provided under the provision of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) which states about the
prohibition of the registration of any trademarks which has the possibility of disparaging an
individual or group, has been discussed. Further, Freedom of speech as a constitutional right
recognized under the First Amendment of the US Constitution and its impact upon trademark
rights have been discussed in this case. The exception situation of freedom of speech which
does not protect the trademark has also been elaborated through various case provisions such
as Snyder v. Phelps. Further, the law of trademark registration in the USA and its exception
under the right of freedom of speech has been discussed in this case. The Supreme Court's
view over the present case considering the guidelines of guidelines of the Administrative Law
Act of 1920 has also been discussed. In addition to this, the significant principle of
Administrative law named the doctrine of 'Chevron Doctrine', which was adopted in the case
of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. has been discussed in this
case. Through this doctrine, the Federal Court’s authority to determine the correctness of the
decision of a Federal Body or authority has been recognized.
Analysis:
It can be seen from the facts of the present case that Simon Tam who was a member
of the American Rock Band filed a trademark registration application for their band's name
Issue:
The issue, in this case, was in the cases of denial of trademark rights of a party, where
the government does not have any authority to monitor over the same issue, can be termed as
is an abridgment or curtailment of rights or not.
Rule:
In this case, the rule of the Lanham Act relating to trademark infringement on
disparaging as provided under the provision of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) which states about the
prohibition of the registration of any trademarks which has the possibility of disparaging an
individual or group, has been discussed. Further, Freedom of speech as a constitutional right
recognized under the First Amendment of the US Constitution and its impact upon trademark
rights have been discussed in this case. The exception situation of freedom of speech which
does not protect the trademark has also been elaborated through various case provisions such
as Snyder v. Phelps. Further, the law of trademark registration in the USA and its exception
under the right of freedom of speech has been discussed in this case. The Supreme Court's
view over the present case considering the guidelines of guidelines of the Administrative Law
Act of 1920 has also been discussed. In addition to this, the significant principle of
Administrative law named the doctrine of 'Chevron Doctrine', which was adopted in the case
of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. has been discussed in this
case. Through this doctrine, the Federal Court’s authority to determine the correctness of the
decision of a Federal Body or authority has been recognized.
Analysis:
It can be seen from the facts of the present case that Simon Tam who was a member
of the American Rock Band filed a trademark registration application for their band's name
2LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
'The Slants' in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, the same was
rejected by the U.S Patent and Trademark Office stating that such name if opposing the
provision of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of any
trademarks which have the possibility of disparaging an individual or group(Liotti, 2006).
Simon Tam then has applied to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Patent and
Trademark Office stating that the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected their
trademark plea by interpreting the name of the band 'the slant' as a term which is used to
recognize the people belongs to Asian descent (Npr.org, 2017). However, the band, on the
other hand, claimed that they had no such intention to refer to those people of Asian descent
and they have used the name out of their perspective that they want to re-apposite the word
into something constructive and aimed to empower the same in a positive sense. Therefore,
they have claimed that they have no intent to use such words as a disgrace to any particular
community. However, the PTO while interpreting the same used unreliable sources such as
Urban Dictionary to justify their claims and it has been alleged by Tam that they have
ignored the survey data and also did not take the advice of linguistics experts while
interpreting the term (Matal v. Tam). They have further did not take into consideration the
legal announcements of the leaders of Asian American community leaders while taking the
decision not to grant a trademark over the term (Npr.org, 2017).
The Federal Circuit Court heard the trial of the case at through en banc method and
held that the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for rejecting the
applicant to grant patent over the name 'the Slant' considering the breach of the provision of
15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) of the Lanham Act is held to be completely unconstitutional (Phillips,
2008). The court further held that such denial is through violation of the rule envisaged under
the category of freedom of speech and expression of the United States Constitution (Levy,
2017). Such right of the citizens of the USA is protected by the First Amendment to
'The Slants' in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, the same was
rejected by the U.S Patent and Trademark Office stating that such name if opposing the
provision of 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration of any
trademarks which have the possibility of disparaging an individual or group(Liotti, 2006).
Simon Tam then has applied to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Patent and
Trademark Office stating that the United States Patent and Trademark Office rejected their
trademark plea by interpreting the name of the band 'the slant' as a term which is used to
recognize the people belongs to Asian descent (Npr.org, 2017). However, the band, on the
other hand, claimed that they had no such intention to refer to those people of Asian descent
and they have used the name out of their perspective that they want to re-apposite the word
into something constructive and aimed to empower the same in a positive sense. Therefore,
they have claimed that they have no intent to use such words as a disgrace to any particular
community. However, the PTO while interpreting the same used unreliable sources such as
Urban Dictionary to justify their claims and it has been alleged by Tam that they have
ignored the survey data and also did not take the advice of linguistics experts while
interpreting the term (Matal v. Tam). They have further did not take into consideration the
legal announcements of the leaders of Asian American community leaders while taking the
decision not to grant a trademark over the term (Npr.org, 2017).
The Federal Circuit Court heard the trial of the case at through en banc method and
held that the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office for rejecting the
applicant to grant patent over the name 'the Slant' considering the breach of the provision of
15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) of the Lanham Act is held to be completely unconstitutional (Phillips,
2008). The court further held that such denial is through violation of the rule envisaged under
the category of freedom of speech and expression of the United States Constitution (Levy,
2017). Such right of the citizens of the USA is protected by the First Amendment to
3LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
the United States Constitution and is, therefore, strongly protected from government
constraints. According to the expressive conduct guaranteed under the right of freedom of
speech, it is said to be such non-verbal conduct that intends to communicate a message
through in symbolic speech (Bray et al., 2016). Therefore, Expressive conduct, though not
specified but is secured under the First Amendment as a form of speech from any kind of
Government intervention (Loveland, 2018). Therefore, in this the purpose behind the use of
the word 'the Slant' by the band is said to be expressive conduct and denying trademark on
the same is a breach of the provision of freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment
to the constitution of USA. Further, the denial of the granting of the trademark over the term
does not fall within the purview of content-based restriction guaranteed under the right to
freedom of speech, which thoroughly eliminates discrimination over any sort of subject-
matter or viewpoint.
In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the court held that to determine whether a restriction
is content-based or content-neutral it is necessary to look for the message of the speaker in a
similar situation but in a different venue (Snyder v. Phelps). Therefore, in the present case, it
can be seen that there is nowhere found that the band intended to use the word in a different
meaning in any of their songs or during a concert, neither have they promoted their band's
popularity based upon such crippled meaning. The slants presented the fact that US PTO has
on several occasions denied the granting of the trademark in different cases. In 1856 the US
PTO has denied the registration to a group called "Defeat the Know-Nothings" stating the
fact that it is disparaging to the American Party members. In another case, PTO again denied
the registration to the name “Abort the Republicans” stating that it is disparaging to
Republicans, and on the other occasion registration has been denied over the name
“Democrats Shouldn’t Breed stating the fact that it is disparaging to Democrats.
the United States Constitution and is, therefore, strongly protected from government
constraints. According to the expressive conduct guaranteed under the right of freedom of
speech, it is said to be such non-verbal conduct that intends to communicate a message
through in symbolic speech (Bray et al., 2016). Therefore, Expressive conduct, though not
specified but is secured under the First Amendment as a form of speech from any kind of
Government intervention (Loveland, 2018). Therefore, in this the purpose behind the use of
the word 'the Slant' by the band is said to be expressive conduct and denying trademark on
the same is a breach of the provision of freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment
to the constitution of USA. Further, the denial of the granting of the trademark over the term
does not fall within the purview of content-based restriction guaranteed under the right to
freedom of speech, which thoroughly eliminates discrimination over any sort of subject-
matter or viewpoint.
In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, the court held that to determine whether a restriction
is content-based or content-neutral it is necessary to look for the message of the speaker in a
similar situation but in a different venue (Snyder v. Phelps). Therefore, in the present case, it
can be seen that there is nowhere found that the band intended to use the word in a different
meaning in any of their songs or during a concert, neither have they promoted their band's
popularity based upon such crippled meaning. The slants presented the fact that US PTO has
on several occasions denied the granting of the trademark in different cases. In 1856 the US
PTO has denied the registration to a group called "Defeat the Know-Nothings" stating the
fact that it is disparaging to the American Party members. In another case, PTO again denied
the registration to the name “Abort the Republicans” stating that it is disparaging to
Republicans, and on the other occasion registration has been denied over the name
“Democrats Shouldn’t Breed stating the fact that it is disparaging to Democrats.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
4LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
According to the law of Trademark regulation in the USA, a trademark is said to be
that legal guideline which secures the commercial identity of a brand or business by
dispiriting other competitors of the same businesses from adopting an identical name or logo
which is referred as a confusing similarity of an already prevailing trademark. Therefore, the
idea is to provide the customer with an easily recognizable logo or name of their favorite
brand. However, considering the limited scope of protecting a trademark, the right to free
speech envisaged under the First Amendment to the Constitution of USA provides the
defense of fair use regarding trademark infringement. Therefore, considering such guidelines
as well as considering the guidelines of the Administrative Law Act of 1920 the Supreme
Court opined the view that, the Slants should have been granted the trademark rights over the
name (Barnett, 2017). Furthermore, the Court has considered the principle of 'Chevron
Doctrine' while deciding the appeal of the slants. It is regarded as one of the significant
principles of Administrative law which were adopted in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Supreme Court, in this case, set out a two-fold
legal test to determine the reasonability of the decision of a Federal government agency. The
first step is to settle on whether Congress has conveyed its intention in the applied statute
and, if so then whether such intent is vague or clear. The second step is to conclude the
rational construction of the agency; a court needs to assess the fact that whether the verdict of
Congress to depart such vagueness or their failure to embrace with express language up to a
explicit point has been done explicitly or not (Walker, 2016). Therefore, considering all these
factors the court has held that the decision of the US PTO was unconstitutional as a
trademark is not a government speech but a private one.
Henceforth, it can be said that denial of trademark rights of a party, where the
government does not have any authority to monitor over the same issue, can be termed as is
According to the law of Trademark regulation in the USA, a trademark is said to be
that legal guideline which secures the commercial identity of a brand or business by
dispiriting other competitors of the same businesses from adopting an identical name or logo
which is referred as a confusing similarity of an already prevailing trademark. Therefore, the
idea is to provide the customer with an easily recognizable logo or name of their favorite
brand. However, considering the limited scope of protecting a trademark, the right to free
speech envisaged under the First Amendment to the Constitution of USA provides the
defense of fair use regarding trademark infringement. Therefore, considering such guidelines
as well as considering the guidelines of the Administrative Law Act of 1920 the Supreme
Court opined the view that, the Slants should have been granted the trademark rights over the
name (Barnett, 2017). Furthermore, the Court has considered the principle of 'Chevron
Doctrine' while deciding the appeal of the slants. It is regarded as one of the significant
principles of Administrative law which were adopted in the case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The Supreme Court, in this case, set out a two-fold
legal test to determine the reasonability of the decision of a Federal government agency. The
first step is to settle on whether Congress has conveyed its intention in the applied statute
and, if so then whether such intent is vague or clear. The second step is to conclude the
rational construction of the agency; a court needs to assess the fact that whether the verdict of
Congress to depart such vagueness or their failure to embrace with express language up to a
explicit point has been done explicitly or not (Walker, 2016). Therefore, considering all these
factors the court has held that the decision of the US PTO was unconstitutional as a
trademark is not a government speech but a private one.
Henceforth, it can be said that denial of trademark rights of a party, where the
government does not have any authority to monitor over the same issue, can be termed as is
5LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
an abridgment or curtailment of rights according to the opinion of the Supreme Court in the
present case.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be concluded that The band's asking for trademark protection against
their name is significant as the band stated that to crack an important album deal, it is
required for them to have trademark protection over the band's name. Furthermore, as opined
by the court that the band has not intended to disparage the American Asian Minority by
using the word slant and also court stated that it should be registered as a trademark to
promote the positive use of the word instead of the orthodox use. Furthermore, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, who was one of a sitting judge of the appeal bench stated very crucial points of the
first amendment protection against trademarks such as a trademark can be said to be
expressive conduct guaranteed under the freedom of speech, this government has no right to
enforce power over the same as such will amount to a violation of the first amendment.
However, Justice Kagan, Justice Soto Mayor and Justice Thomas’s have only supported the
fact of Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg, as mostly they focused on the rejection of
trademark as the violation of First Amendment rights but Justice Kennedy and Justice
Ginsburg wanted to take a stricter test approach to conclude disparagement. However, in the
end, Justice Kagan and Justice Soto Mayor supported the view of Justice Kennedy and
Justice Ginsburg to conclude the case.
an abridgment or curtailment of rights according to the opinion of the Supreme Court in the
present case.
Conclusion:
Therefore, it can be concluded that The band's asking for trademark protection against
their name is significant as the band stated that to crack an important album deal, it is
required for them to have trademark protection over the band's name. Furthermore, as opined
by the court that the band has not intended to disparage the American Asian Minority by
using the word slant and also court stated that it should be registered as a trademark to
promote the positive use of the word instead of the orthodox use. Furthermore, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, who was one of a sitting judge of the appeal bench stated very crucial points of the
first amendment protection against trademarks such as a trademark can be said to be
expressive conduct guaranteed under the freedom of speech, this government has no right to
enforce power over the same as such will amount to a violation of the first amendment.
However, Justice Kagan, Justice Soto Mayor and Justice Thomas’s have only supported the
fact of Justice Kennedy and Justice Ginsburg, as mostly they focused on the rejection of
trademark as the violation of First Amendment rights but Justice Kennedy and Justice
Ginsburg wanted to take a stricter test approach to conclude disparagement. However, in the
end, Justice Kagan and Justice Soto Mayor supported the view of Justice Kennedy and
Justice Ginsburg to conclude the case.
6LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
Reference:
Barnett, H. (2017). Constitutional & administrative law. Taylor & Francis.
Bray, S. L., Paulsen, M. S., Calabresi, S. G., McConnell, M. W., & Baude, W. (2016). The
Constitution of the United States. Foundation Press.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) 467 U.S. 837
Levy, L. W. (2017). The establishment clause: Religion and the First Amendment. UNC
Press Books.
Liotti, C. (2006). The Registrability of Primarily Geographically Deceptive Misdescriptive
Marks: The Development of Sec. 1052 (e)(3). Touro L. Rev., 22, 511.
Loveland, I. D. (Ed.). (2018). Constitutional law. Routledge.
Matal v. Tam, (2017) 582 U.S.
Npr.org. (2017). NPR Choice page. Retrieved 11 April 2020, from
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/18/510310945/in-battle-over-band-name-supreme-
court-considers-free-speech-and-trademarks
Npr.org. (2017). NPR Choice page. Retrieved 11 April 2020, from
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533514196/the-slants-win-
supreme-court-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute
Phillips, R. (2008). A Case for Scandal and Immorality: Proposing Thin Protection of
Controversial Trademarks. U. Balt. Intell. Prop. LJ, 17, 55.
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443
Reference:
Barnett, H. (2017). Constitutional & administrative law. Taylor & Francis.
Bray, S. L., Paulsen, M. S., Calabresi, S. G., McConnell, M. W., & Baude, W. (2016). The
Constitution of the United States. Foundation Press.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984) 467 U.S. 837
Levy, L. W. (2017). The establishment clause: Religion and the First Amendment. UNC
Press Books.
Liotti, C. (2006). The Registrability of Primarily Geographically Deceptive Misdescriptive
Marks: The Development of Sec. 1052 (e)(3). Touro L. Rev., 22, 511.
Loveland, I. D. (Ed.). (2018). Constitutional law. Routledge.
Matal v. Tam, (2017) 582 U.S.
Npr.org. (2017). NPR Choice page. Retrieved 11 April 2020, from
https://www.npr.org/2017/01/18/510310945/in-battle-over-band-name-supreme-
court-considers-free-speech-and-trademarks
Npr.org. (2017). NPR Choice page. Retrieved 11 April 2020, from
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/06/19/533514196/the-slants-win-
supreme-court-battle-over-bands-name-in-trademark-dispute
Phillips, R. (2008). A Case for Scandal and Immorality: Proposing Thin Protection of
Controversial Trademarks. U. Balt. Intell. Prop. LJ, 17, 55.
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
7LEGAL & SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS OF BUSINESS
Walker, C. J. (2016). Toward a Context-Specific Chevron Deference. Mo. L. REv., 81, 1095.
Walker, C. J. (2016). Toward a Context-Specific Chevron Deference. Mo. L. REv., 81, 1095.
1 out of 8
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
+13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024 | Zucol Services PVT LTD | All rights reserved.