{"id":93865,"date":"2017-03-01T15:45:11","date_gmt":"2017-03-01T15:45:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dev.compumark.com\/?p=17927\/"},"modified":"2026-03-27T12:56:15","modified_gmt":"2026-03-27T12:56:15","slug":"slants-offensive-empowering","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/blog\/slants-offensive-empowering\/","title":{"rendered":"The Slants \u2013 Offensive or Empowering?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In 1946, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) drafted something called the \u2018disparagement clause\u2019, which sought to prevent the filing of any trademark which could be deemed as \u201cimmoral, deceptive or scandalous\u201d. In the past, this has usually been reserved for extreme cases where the trademarks have been intended to incite hate or discrimination among particular demographics.<\/p>\n<p>However, it was this clause that was cited by USPTO in what was set to be a standard trademark case involving a band named The Slants. From a general perspective, there\u2019s absolutely nothing controversial or scandalous about the name \u2018The Slants\u2019, but after considering the context of the name \u2014 the band consists of five Asian-Americans \u2014 USPTO decided to refuse its trademark application on the basis that the name is highly disparaging to the Asian-American community.<\/p>\n<p>Unsurprisingly, the band is less than pleased with the issue. Speaking after the decision, bass player and frontman of The Slants, Simon Tam, explained that he was fully aware of the negative connotations of the name \u2014 in fact, that\u2019s the exact reason the members chose it. But instead of offending people, the band wanted to \u201cre-appropriate [the phrase] into something positive and empowering\u201d. Unfortunately, government authorities didn\u2019t see things quite the same way.<\/p>\n<p>The American football team Washington Redskins was handed a similar fate back in 2014, when <a href=\"http:\/\/www.npr.org\/sections\/thetwo-way\/2014\/06\/18\/323205099\/u-s-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark-registration\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">USPTO revoked its trademark<\/a> after Native Americans claimed it was offensive. According to a statement following the decision, USPTO said that \u201cthe term \u2018Redskins\u2019 was disparaging of Native Americans, when used in relation to professional football services, at the times the various registrations involved in the cancellation proceeding were issued.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>However, while the team can still compete in the NFL without a trademark in place, things are much harder for a music group. \u201cIf you want a record label deal, they won\u2019t sign you unless you have a registered trademark,\u201d said Tam.<\/p>\n<p>The issue ultimately boils down to whether it\u2019s in the government\u2019s power to decide whether a certain trademark is offensive or not. According to Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, who filed a brief in the Supreme Court siding with The Slants, it\u2019s not its duty to do so. \u201cIt shouldn\u2019t be the government who makes that call. Surely it is not the case that the government endorses every trademark that it registers,\u201d he said. The government argue that it\u2019s not stopping the band from calling themselves The Slants, it\u2019s simply just refusing to acknowledge it as a trademarked name.<\/p>\n<p>What will the repercussions of this case be for the rest of the industry? Will people start thinking more conservatively when it comes to trademarked names, or has USPTO opened the floodgates to hundreds of trademark disputes involving the disparagement clause? Time will only tell.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In 1946, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) drafted something called the \u2018disparagement clause\u2019, which sought to prevent the filing of any trademark which could be deemed as \u201cimmoral,&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[706],"tags":[30,252,260,116,136],"class_list":["post-93865","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-trademarks","tag-compumark","tag-full-search","tag-trademark-case","tag-trademark-research","tag-uspto"],"acf":[],"lang":"en","translations":{"en":93865},"publishpress_future_workflow_manual_trigger":{"enabledWorkflows":[]},"pll_sync_post":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93865","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=93865"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93865\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":290174,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/93865\/revisions\/290174"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=93865"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=93865"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/clarivate.com\/intellectual-property\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=93865"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}