Iancu v. Brunetti

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Iancu v. Brunetti
Term: 2018
Important Dates
Argument: April 15, 2019
Decided: June 24, 2019
Outcome
Affirmed
Vote
6-3
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Samuel Alito • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Concurring
Samuel Alito
Dissenting
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor


Iancu v. Brunetti is a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 15, 2019, during the court's 2018-2019 term. It came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[1]

The case concerned the First Amendment and the registration of vulgar trademarks.[1] On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's ruling in a 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan penned the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Breyer. Click here for more information about the opinion.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Erik Brunetti tried to register his clothing brand's trademark "FUCT," but it was denied by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. He appealed the decision, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that preventing Brunetti from trademarking "FUCT" violated his First Amendment rights.
  • The issues: Whether Section 1052(a)'s prohibition on the federal registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" marks is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.[2]
  • The outcome: On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's ruling in a 6-3 decision. The court held the "Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of 'immoral[ ] or scandalous' trademarks violates the First Amendment."[3]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[4]

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 24, 2019: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's ruling in a 6-3 decision.
    • April 15, 2019: Oral argument
    • January 4, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear case
    • September 7, 2018: Petition filed with U.S. Supreme Court
    • December 15, 2017: United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision

    Background

    In 1990, Erik Brunetti founded the clothing brand "fuct." In 2011, he tried to register his clothing brand's trademark "FUCT," but it was denied by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The office said that the word was immoral or scandalous, a violation of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act.[5]

    Brunetti appealed the decision to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. The board agreed with the initial decision to not grant the trademark. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that preventing Brunetti from trademarking "FUCT" violated his First Amendment rights.[5]

    Andrei Iancu, the undersecretary of commerce for intellectual property and director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, appealed to the Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear the case on January 4, 2019.

    Question presented

    The petitioner presented the following question to the court:[2]

    Question presented:
    • Whether Section 1052(a)'s prohibition on the federal registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" marks is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

    Outcome

    On June 24, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit's ruling in a 6-3 decision. The court held the "Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of 'immoral[ ] or scandalous' trademarks violates the First Amendment."[3]

    Justice Elena Kagan penned the majority opinion. Justice Samuel Alito filed a concurring opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Stephen Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Breyer.

    Opinion

    In her opinion, Justice Kagan wrote:[3]

    “ The "immoral or scandalous" bar is substantially overbroad. There are a great many immoral and scandalous ideas in the world (even more than there are swearwords), and the Lanham Act covers them all. It therefore violates the First Amendment. [6] ”

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion. In his concurring opinion, Justice Alito wrote:[3]

    “ The provision of the Lanham Act at issue in this case violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and cannot be fixed without rewriting the statute. [6] ”

    Dissenting opinion

    Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Breyer filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. Justice Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, joined by Justice Breyer.

    In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts wrote:[3]

    “ Refusing registration to obscene, vulgar, or profane marks does not offend the First Amendment. Whether such marks can be registered does not affect the extent to which their owners may use them in commerce to identify goods. No speech is being restricted; no one is being punished. The owners of such marks are merely denied certain additional benefits associated with federal trademark registration.[6] ”


    In his dissent, Justice Breyer wrote:[3]

    “ Rather than deducing the answers to First Amendment questions strictly from categories, as the Court often does, I would appeal more often and more directly to the values the First Amendment seeks to protect. ... How much harm to First Amendment interests does a bar on registering highly vulgar or obscene trademarks work? Not much. The statute leaves businesses free to use highly vulgar or obscene words on their products, and even to use such words directly next to other registered marks. [6] ”


    In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote:[3]

    “ The Court’s decision today will beget unfortunate results. With the Lanham Act’s scandalous-marks provision, 15 U. S. C. §1052(a), struck down as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, the Government will have no statutory basis to refuse (and thus no choice but to begin) registering marks containing the most vulgar, profane, or obscene words and images imaginable. ... Rather than read the relevant text as the majority does, it is equally possible to read that provision’s bar on the registration of "scandalous" marks to address only obscenity, vulgarity, and profanity. Such a narrowing construction would save that duly enacted legislative text by rendering it a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restriction on speech that is permissible in the context of a beneficial governmental initiative like the trademark-registration system. [6] ”

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio


    Transcript

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "18-302 Iancu v. Brunetti," accessed March 8, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Supreme Court of the United States, "18-302 Iancu v. Brunetti," accessed March 8, 2019
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 Supreme Court of the United States, Iancu v. Brunetti, decided June 24, 2019
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Iancu v. Brunetti," accessed March 8, 2019
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Oyez.org, "Iancu v. Brunetti," accessed March 8, 2019
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    v • e
    Ballotpedia
    About
    Editorial Content
    Geoff Pallay, Director of Editorial Content and Editor-in-Chief • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Doug Kronaizl, Local Elections Project Manager • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Thomas Ellis • Frank Festa • Nicole Fisher • Brianna Hosea • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Nathan Maxwell • Ellie Mikus • Jackie Mitchell • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Alexis Thacker • Janie Valentine • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox • Mercedes Yanora
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Iancu_v._Brunetti&oldid=9117289"