Trademarks Contrary to Public Policy and Morality in the U.S. Trademark Law

Year 2025, Volume: 13 Issue: 1, 1 - 27

Muhammed Yakup Altun

https://doi.org/10.56701/shd.1577173

Abstract

US trademark law bars the registration of immoral, scandalous, and disparaging trademarks, and these provisions are similar to those in Turkish and European Union law that prevent the registration of trademarks contrary to public order and morality. However, while these registration bars remain active in Türkiye and the European Union, the U.S. Supreme Court has found the corresponding provisions in U.S. law to be unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that trademarks serve as meaningful symbols capable of conveying ideas and messages, thereby functioning as a form of communication, and concluded that these restrictions constituted viewpoint discrimination, thus violating the Free Speech Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The annulled provisions have not yet been replaced with new regulations by the Congress. This gap has allowed for the registration of many trademarks that would otherwise have been denied under the annulled provisions and has led the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to rely more frequently on the failure to function doctrine when evaluating trademark eligibility.
This paper first discusses the fundamental principles of U.S. trademark law and the application of the annulled provisions prior to the Supreme Court’s decisions. Next, the Supreme Court's decisions will be analyzed in detail, taking into account the dissenting opinions. Finally, USPTO practices following the annulments will be evaluated within the scope of the failure-to-function doctrine, and the possibility of Congress filling this legal gap with a new regulation targeting only offensive expressions, in line with the Constitution, will be discussed. Additionally, the retention of similar provisions in Turkish and EU law, in contrast to their annulment in the U.S., will be explained through differences in constitutional frameworks.

Keywords

Lanham Act, Immoral Trademarks, Scandalous Trademarks, Disparaging Trademarks, Freedom of Speech

ABD Marka Hukuku’nda Kamu Düzenine ve Ahlaka Aykırı Markalar

Abstract

Türk ve Avrupa Hukuku’nda yer alan kamu düzenine ve ahlaka aykırı markaların tescil edilemeyeceğini düzenleyen hükümlerin benzeri, ABD Hukuku’nda ahlaka aykırı, skandal ve aşağılayıcı markaların tescilini yasaklayan hükümler olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Ancak Türkiye’de ve Avrupa Birliği’nde bu tescil yasakları halen yürürlükteyken, ABD Yüksek Mahkemesi, bu tescil yasaklarını düzenleyen hükümleri ABD Anayasası’na aykırı bularak iptal etmiştir. Mahkeme, markaların fikir ve mesajlar ifade edebilen anlamlı semboller olduğunu, bu sebeple iletişim kurma işlevi görebileceğini belirlemiş ve söz konusu hükümlerin bakış açısı ayrımcılığı yaparak ABD Anayasası’nın İfade Özgürlüğü maddesine aykırılık yarattığını belirtmiştir. ABD Yasama Meclisi tarafından iptal edilen bu hükümlerin yerine henüz yeni bir düzenleme getirilmemiştir. Bu boşluk, iptal edilen hükümler uyarınca tescil edilmemesi gereken birçok markanın tesciline imkân tanımış ve Birleşik Devletler Patent ve Marka Ofisi'nin (USPTO) başvuruları değerlendirirken işlev görmeme doktrinini daha sık kullanmasına neden olmuştur.
Bu çalışmada öncelikle ABD Marka Hukuku’nun temel ilkeleri ve iptal kararları öncesinde iptal edilen hükümlerin uygulanma şekli incelenecektir. Ardından, Yüksek Mahkeme’nin iptal kararları, karşı görüşler de dikkate alınarak ayrıntılı olarak analiz edilecektir. Son olarak, işlev görmeme doktrini çerçevesinde iptal kararları sonrası USPTO uygulamaları değerlendirilecek; ABD Kongresi’nin yalnızca saldırgan ifade biçimlerini hedef alan yeni bir düzenleme yaparak marka tescilindeki bu boşluğu Anayasa’ya uygun biçimde doldurma olasılığı tartışılacaktır. Ayrıca ABD Hukuku’nda ilgili hükümlerin iptal edilmesine karşın Türk ve AB Hukuku’nda bu hükümlerin yürürlükte kalmasının anayasal farklılıklardan kaynaklandığı açıklanacaktır.

Keywords

Lanham Yasası, Ahlaka Aykırı Markalar, Skandal Markalar, Aşağılayıcı Markalar, İfade Özgürlüğü

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışmanın hazırlanma sürecinde bilimsel ve etik ilkelere uyulduğu ve yararlanılan tüm çalışmaların kaynakçada belirtildiği beyan olunmaktadır.

References

• Bonadio, Enrico. “Brands, Morality and Public Policy: Some Reflections on the Ban on Registration of Controversial Trademarks”. Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review 19 (2015), 38-61. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1270&context=iplr
• Chiappetta, Vincent. “Trademarks: More Than Meets the Eye”. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 1 (2003), 35-104. https://illinoisjltp.com/file/126/chiapetta.pdf
• CRS, Congressional Research Service. “The First Amendment: Categories of Speech”. Erişim: 15 Ağustos 2024. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/IF11072.pdf
• Cuatrecasas, Lucas D. “Failure to Function and Trademark Law’s Outermost Bound”. NYU Law Review 96 (2021), 1312-1372. https://www.nyulawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Cuatrecasas-ONLINE.pdf
• Çolak, Uğur. Türk Marka Hukuku. İstanbul: On İki Levha Yayıncılık A.Ş., 2023.
• Dinçer, Yasin – Altun, Muhammed Yakup. “Survey Evidence in Trademark Law: Use and Evidential Value in the United States and Turkey”. Necmettin Erbakan Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 7/3 (2024), 795-836. https://doi.org/10.51120/NEUHFD.2024.140
• Dinwoodie, Graeme B. – Mark D. Janis. Trademarks and Unfair Competition: Law and Policy. New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2018.
• Farley, Christine Haight – Lisa P. Ramsey. “Raising the Threshold for Trademark Infringement to Protect Free Expression”. American University Law Review 72 (2023), 1225-1292. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4396913
• Grynberg, Michael. “The Trademark Problem of ‘TRUMP TOO SMALL’”. The Columbia Journal of Law and the Arts 46 (2022), 47-60. https://journals.library.columbia.edu/index.php/lawandarts/article/view/11015/5500
• Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1705, (1998). https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/TTAB-opinion.pdf.
• Hetu, Jennifer M. – Reitz, Jukie E. “Intellectual Property Law: Disparaging, Immoral, and Scandalous Trademarks Just because You Can, Doesn’t Mean You Should”. Michigan Bar Journal 100 (2021), 22-25. https://www.honigman.com/media/publication/2469_Disparaging,%20Immoral,%20and%20Scandalous%20Trademarks,%20Michigan%20Bar%20Journal,%20Sept%202021.pdf
• Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S.Ct. 2294, 2302 (2019). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/18-302_e29g.pdf.
• In re Fox, 702 F.3d 633, 638 (Fed.Cir. 2012). https://casetext.com/case/in-re-fox-16
• In re McGinley, 660 F.2d 481, 482 (C.C.P.A. 1981). https://casetext.com/case/in-re-mcginley
• In re Riverbank Canning Co. 95 F.2d 327, (C.C.P.A. 1938). https://casetext.com/case/in-re-riverbank-canning-co
• Janis, Mark D. Trademark and Unfair Competition in a Nutshell. St. Paul: West Academic Publishing, 2021.
• Kaya, İlknur. “İsviçre ve Fransiz Hukuku Bakımından Kamu Düzenine ve Genel Ahlaka Aykırı Markalar”, TBB Dergisi 175 (2024), 393-422. https://tbbdergisi.barobirlik.org.tr/m2024-175-2234
• LaFrance, Mary. Understanding Trademark Law. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2020.
• Lee, Ilhyung. “Tam Through the Lens Of Brunetti: The Slants”. Emory Law Journal 69 (2019), 2001-2017. https://scholarlycommons.law.emory.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=elj-online
• Lee, Jon J. “Racism and Trademark Abandonment”. The George Washington Law Review 91 (2023), 932-1008. https://www.gwlr.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/91-Geo.-Wash.-L.-Rev.-932.pdf
• Loza, Christina S. “Feature: Iancu v. Brunetti: Immoral and Scandalous Marks May Now Be Registered with the USPTO without Limitation”. Orange County Lawyer Magazine 61 (2019), 31-38.
• Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218, 247 (2017). https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
• Memişoğlu, Sami Özgür Memişoğlu. Marka Hukukunda Mutlak Ret Sebepleri: İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi, 2018.
• Ochoa, Tyler T. vd. Understanding Intellectual Property. Durham: Carolina Academic Press, 2020.
• Pro Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 385 U.S. App. D.C. 417, 418, 565 F.3d 880 (2009). https://casetext.com/case/pro-football-v-harjo
• Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 112 F. Supp. 3d 439, 448 (E.D. Va. 2015). https://casetext.com/case/pro-football-inc-v-blackhorse
• Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 709 F. App'x 182, 184 (4th Cir. 2018). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/15-1874/15-1874-2018-01-18.html
• Ramsey, Lisa P. “Trademark Law Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law Symposium: Free Speech Challenges to Trademark Law After Matal v. Tam”. Houston Law Review 56 (2018), 401-470. https://houstonlawreview.org/article/6779-free-speech-challenges-to-trademark-law-after-i-matal-v-tam-i
• Roberts, Alexandra J. “Trademark Failure to Function”. Iowa Law Review 104 (2019), 1977-2054. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/sites/ilr.law.uiowa.edu/files/2022-10/Trademark%20Failure%20to%20Function.pdf
• Schechter, Roger E. – Thomas, John R. Principles of Trademark Law. St. Paul: West Academic Publishing, 2021.
• SMK, Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu (Kanun No. 6769), Resmi Gazete 29944 (10 Ocak 2017). Erişim 15 Temmuz 2024. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=6769&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5
• Snow, Ned. “Immoral Trademarks after Brunetti”. Houston Law Review 58 (2020), 401-451. https://houstonlawreview.org/article/18017-immoral-trademarks-after-_brunetti_
• Stephenson, Michael. “The Lanham Act’s Immoral or Scandalous Provision: Down but not Out”. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 82 (2021), 973-995. https://lawreview.law.pitt.edu/ojs/lawreview/article/view/807
• The Value House v. Phillips Mercantile Co., 523 F.2d 424, 429 (10th Cir. 1975). https://casetext.com/case/value-house-v-phillips-mercantile-company
• Thomas, Janet Shiffler. “Likelihood of Confusion Under the Lanham Act: A Question of Fact, a Question of Law, or Both?”. Kentucky Law Journal 73 (1984), 234-253. https://uknowledge.uky.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2033&context=klj
• Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. No. 1,606,810 (02.04.1999). https://ttab-reading-room.uspto.gov/efoia/efoia-ui/
• Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. No. 87496454 (24.06.2021). https://plus.lexis.com/
• Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. No. 88308426, 88308434, 88308451, ve 88310900 (22.08.2022). https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/TTAB-opinion.pdf
• Tsesis, Alexander. “Justice Breyer's Balanced Reasoning on Free Speech: A Comparative Analysis”. First Amendment Law Review 21 (2023), 395-422. https://journals.law.unc.edu/firstamendmentlawreview/wp-content/uploads/sites/8/2023/08/tsesis-piece-.pdf
• TTAB, Trademark Trial and Appea Board, In re Brunetti, 2022 TTAB LEXIS 297. https://plus.lexis.com/
• Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasası (Kanun No. 2709), Resmi Gazete 17863 (9 Kasım 1982). Erişim 12.Temmuz 2024. https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuat?MevzuatNo=2709&MevzuatTur=1&MevzuatTertip=5
• United States Patent and Trademark Office, “Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP)”, (Erişim Tarihi 15.06.2024), https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/Apr2017
• University of Notre Dame Du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1375 (1983). https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/703/1372/12104/
• Widmaier, Uli. “Use, Liability, and the Structure of Trademark Law”. Hofstra Law Review 33 (2004), 602-709. https://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2433&context=hlr
• Yasaman, Hamdi vd. Sınai Mülkiyet Kanunu Şerhi. İstanbul: Vedat Kitapçılık, 2021.
• Yen, Alfred C. “Choosing the Consequences of Tam and Brunetti”. Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property 19 (2020), 396-406. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1276&context=ckjip