It is a week ago today that the Supreme Court handed down its long-awaiting ruling in Matal v Tam, holding that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the US constitution. On the day of the ruling, there were at least 11 trademark applications filed that could be deemed disparaging or offensive. We reached out to the applicants of these filings to find out why they have chosen now to make their applications, and how they expect last Monday’s decision to affect their applications.

This part of the website has now moved to the subscriber area. To read more, please pick an option below.

Register to access two articles per month

Subscribe for unlimited access to articles, in-depth analysis and research from the World Trademark Review experts

Already registered? Log in

What our customers are saying

World Trademark Review, and particularly the WTR 1000, are always very useful sources for obtaining impressions and detailed information about foreign colleagues, law firms and jurisdictions. Our whole trademark team benefits from articles published in World Trademark Review.

Christian R Thomas
Attorney at law, legal and trademark department
KUHNEN & WACKER Intellectual Property Law Firm


Subscribe to World Trademark Review to receive access to the full range of trademark intelligence, insight, and case law, as well as our guides, rankings and daily market insight delivered to your inbox.

Why subscribe?


Please log in or register to leave a comment.

There are no comments on this article

Share this article