Iancu v. Brunetti

Erik Brunetti sought federal registration for the trademark “FUCT” for his clothing brand. The United States Patent and Trademark Office refused registration under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which bars marks that consist of or comprise immoral or scandalous matter. Brunetti challenged the refusal, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held the provision unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The government appealed, and the Supreme Court affirmed in a 6-3 decision, ruling that the immoral or scandalous marks ban constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination because it permits registration of positive or neutral marks while rejecting those it deems offensive. The Court declined to adopt a narrowing construction, holding the statute facially invalid.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Federal Circuit, holding 6-3 that the “immoral or scandalous” marks bar is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination and is facially invalid, thus cannot be saved by a narrowing construction.

Whether the Lanham Act's prohibition on registering “immoral or scandalous” trademarks, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by impermissibly discriminating based on viewpoint.

The ruling invalidated a century-old moral provision in federal trademark law, significantly expanding First Amendment protection for trademarks. It compelled the USPTO to accept registrations for vulgar, offensive, or provocative marks, sparking debate over the boundaries between commercial regulation and free expression. The decision reinforced a trend of heightened judicial scrutiny of content-based speech restrictions, establishing that the government cannot refuse trademark registration simply because it deems a mark distasteful or scandalous.