Matal v. Tam

Key takeaways

Matal v. Tam belongs to engineering; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Matal v. Tam to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Matal v. Tam from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) (previously known as Lee v. Tam) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Background Simon Tam is the founder and bassist for the Asian-American dance-rock band The Slants. Tam gave that name to his band to "reclaim" and to "take ownership" of Asian stereotypes. On March 5, 2010, Tam filed his first application to register THE SLANTS. After several appeals, the application was eventually abandoned. On November 14, 2011, Tam filed his second application (App. No. 85/472,044) seeking to register the mark THE SLANTS for "Entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band", based on his use of the mark since 2006. The examiner at the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused to register Tam's mark and found it likely disparaging to "persons of Asian descent" under § 2(a). The examiner found that the mark likely referred to people of Asian descent in a disparaging way and explained that the term "slants" had "a long history of being used to deride and mock a physical feature" of people of Asian descent. The examiner found that a substantial composite of persons of Asian descent might find the term offensive precisely because it was being used by an Asian American band: "Here, the evidence is uncontested that applicant is a founding member of a band that is self described as being composed of members of Asian descent. ... Thus, the association of the term SLANTS with those of Asian descent is evidenced by how the applicant uses the work - as the name of an all Asian-American band." That determination made Tam decide to appeal before the Federal Circuit. Before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, the case was titled In re Tam. The PTO interpreted the likely meaning of "The Slants" as a term to refer to people of Asian descent, despite claims from the band that the actual meaning referred to its perspective and that it was repurposing the term from an offensive slur. The PTO used anecdotal sources like Urban Dictionary to support its claims. Survey data, linguistics experts, and legal declarations from Asian American community leaders were not considered. The opinion was heard en banc by the Federal Circuit and the majority, which was written by Circuit Judge Moore. The court determined that the Disparaging Provision (15 U.S.C. § 1052(a)) of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional and found that Tam was entitled to trademark registration. Tam was represented by John C. Connell, Ron Coleman and Joel MacMull, then of Archer & Greiner. The US government petitioned the US Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted in September 2016. In addition to the case, there was another case before the Fourth Circuit, Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 112 F. Supp. 3d 439 (E.D. Va. 2015), to decide the same issue of whether or not the disparaging provision of the Lanham Act was unconstitutional. Despite an attempt by Pro Football to merge the two cases, the Supreme Court refused to grant the motion. Section 2(a)'s ban on the federal registration of "immoral" or "scandalous" marks originated in the trademark legislation of the Lanham Act. A disparaging mark is a mark that "dishonors by comparison with what is inferior, slights, deprecates, degrades, or affects or injures by unjust comparison".

Relevant areas of law

Lanham Act's disparaging provision No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501(9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.

Viewpoint discrimination Viewpoint discrimination occurs when the government bans not only certain content or topics but also certain ideas. The test for viewpoint discrimination is "[o]ther things being equal, viewpoint discrimination occurs when government allows one message while prohibiting the messages of those who can reasonably be expected to respond." Additionally, viewpoint discrimination involves the intent to discourage one viewpoint and to advance another. The general concern is that the government tries to eradicate not only content from the marketplace but also certain viewpoints, whether positive or negative. Something that rises to the level of viewpoint-based discrimination is deemed to be unconstitutional.

Content discrimination In Reed v. Town of Gilbert, the court stated, "Government regulation of speech is content based if a law applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed." The Court further determined, "This commonsense meaning of the phrase 'content based' requires a court to consider whether a regulation of speech 'on its face" draws distinctions based on the message a speaker conveys." For that reason, content-based discrimination is presumptively invalid. If something is found to discriminate on the basis of content, it must survive strict scrutiny.

Strict scrutiny According to Nat'l Assoc. of Mfrs. v. Taylor: "[t]o satisfy strict scrutiny, the government must establish three elements: (1) 'the interests the government proffers in support' of the statute must be properly characterized as 'compelling'; (2) the statute must 'effectively advance [] those interests'; and (3) the statute must be 'narrowly tailored to advance the compelling interests asserted.'

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Matal v. Tam

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Matal v. Tam claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In engineering, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Matal v. Tam before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Matal v. Tam ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Matal v. Tam

In research: Matal v. Tam appears in engineering research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Matal v. Tam in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Matal v. Tam is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics Asian-American mass media, Naming controversies, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Matal v. Tam outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

How to study Matal v. Tam in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Matal v. Tam means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Matal v. Tam out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Matal v. Tam in simple terms?

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) (previously known as Lee v.

Why does Matal v. Tam matter?

Because it connects several engineering ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Matal v. Tam?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Matal v. Tam.