Iancu v. Brunetti
In brief
The Supreme Court upheld the Federal Circuit’s ruling and struck down the ban on registering “immoral” or “scandalous” marks because it treated messages differently based on their views.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 6-3 · June 24, 2019 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- This case asked whether the federal government could refuse to register trademarks it considered “immoral” or “scandalous,” after the Patent and Trademark Office denied Erik Brunetti’s application to register the mark FUCT.
- Who it affects
- The Patent and Trademark Office may no longer rely on this ban to reject a trademark application because of the mark’s viewpoint, meaning the idea or position it expresses.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court held that this part of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment because it discriminates based on viewpoint.
Following Matal v. Tam, the ruling reinforces the Court’s broader First Amendment rule that government cannot treat speech differently because of the view it expresses.
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.
What the Court decided
Holding
The Lanham Act’s prohibition on registration of “immoral[ ] or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam , 582 U. S. ___, this Court declared unconstitutional the Lanham Act’s ban on registering marks that “disparage” any “person[ ], living or dead.” §1052(a). A divided Court agreed on two propositions. First, if a trademark registration bar is viewpoint based, it is unconstitutional. And second, the disparagement bar was viewpoint based. The “immoral or scandalous” bar similarly discriminates on the basis of viewpoint and so collides with this Court’s First Amendment doctrine. 877 F. 3d 1330, affirmed.
- Result
- Affirmed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Dissented
- Wrote an opinion
- Majority · 6joined the Court's opinion
From the opinions
“The Court’s decision today will beget unfortunate results.”
What's next
The Supreme Court’s review is complete. Any further handling of Brunetti’s application must follow the Federal Circuit’s ruling, not the registration ban the Court struck down.
Why it matters
The decision confirms that government cannot favor one side’s views over another’s in trademark registration.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Opinion added: opinion
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Court Order added: Lower Court Orders/Opinions
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did Iancu v. Brunetti decide?
- The Supreme Court upheld the Federal Circuit’s ruling and decided that the Lanham Act’s “immoral” or “scandalous” registration ban violates First Amendment free-speech protections.
- Why was the trademark rule unconstitutional?
- The Court said it discriminated by viewpoint, meaning it treated trademarks differently based on the ideas or views they expressed.
- Who won the trademark dispute?
- Erik Brunetti won at the Supreme Court because the Court left the Federal Circuit’s ruling against the registration ban in place.
- What happens next for Brunetti’s application?
- The Supreme Court’s review is complete; any further handling must follow the Federal Circuit’s ruling rather than the registration ban the Court struck down.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.