application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the...

8/19/2019 APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/application-for-an-extension-of-time-within-which-to-file-a-petition-for-a 1/6

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNI TED STATES

_______________

No. A- ___ ___

MI CHELLE K. LEE, DI RECTOR, U. S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFI CE

v.

SI MON SHI AO TAM

_______________

APPLI CATI ON FOR AN EXTENSI ON OF TI MEWI THI N WHI CH TO FI LE A PETI TI ON FOR A WRI T OF CERTI ORARI

TO THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALSFOR THE FEDERAL CI RCUI T _______________

The Sol i ci t or Gener al , on behal f of t he Di r ect or of t he

Uni t ed St at es Pat ent and Tr ademar k Of f i ce ( PTO) , r espect f ul l y

r equest s a 30- day extensi on of t i me, t o and i ncl udi ng Apr i l 20,

2016, wi t hi n whi ch t o f i l e a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of cer t i or ar i

t o r evi ew t he j udgment of t he Uni t ed St at es Cour t of Appeal s f or

t he Feder al Ci r cui t i n t hi s case. The cour t of appeal s, si t t i ng

en banc, ent ered i t s j udgment on December 22, 2015. Unl ess

ext ended, t he t i me wi t hi n whi ch t o f i l e a pet i t i on f or a wr i t of

cer t i or ar i wi l l expi r e on Mar ch 21, 2016. The j ur i sdi ct i on of

t hi s Cour t woul d be i nvoked under 28 U. S. C. 1254( 1) . A copy of

t he opi ni on of t he en banc cour t of appeal s i s at t ached. App. ,

i nf r a, 1a- 47a.

1. a. Thi s case i nvol ves a Fi r st Amendment chal l enge t o

Sect i on 2( a) of t he Lanham Act , 15 U. S. C. 1052( a) . Tr ademar k



2

r i ght s exi st at common l aw, and t he hol der of a t r ademark may

use and enf or ce t he mar k wi t hout f eder al r egi st r at i on. See,

e. g. , B&B Har dwar e, I nc. v. Har gi s I ndus. , I nc. , 135 S. Ct .

1293, 1299 ( 2015) . But r egi st r at i on under t he Lanham Act

pr ovi des cer t ai n benef i t s. For exampl e, r egi st r at i on pr ovi des

pr i ma f aci e evi dence of t he val i di t y of t he mar k, t he owner shi p

of t he mar k, and t he owner ’ s excl usi ve r i ght t o use t he mar k i n

connect i on wi t h cer t ai n goods or ser vi ces i n commer ce. 15

U. S. C. 1057( b) .

The Lanham Act provi des t hat some mar ks may not r ecei ve t he

benef i t s of r egi st r at i on. As rel evant her e, Sect i on 2( a) of t he

Act pr ovi des t hat a t r ademark may be “r ef used r egi st r at i on” when

i t “[ c] onsi st s of * * * mat t er whi ch may di spar age or

f al sel y suggest a connect i on wi t h per sons, l i vi ng or dead,

i nst i t ut i ons, bel i ef s, or nat i onal symbol s, or br i ng t hem i nt o

cont empt , or di sr eput e. ” 15 U. S. C. 1052( a) .

b. Respondent i s a member of a dance- r ock band cal l ed

“The Sl ant s. ” I n 2011, he sought f eder al r egi st r at i on of t he

proposed mark THE SLANTS i n connect i on wi t h per f ormances by hi s

band. A PTO t r ademar k exami ni ng at t or ney r ef used r egi st r at i on

under 15 U. S. C. 1052( a) on t he gr ound that t he mark i s

di spar agi ng t o per sons of Asi an ancest r y.

The Tr ademar k Tr i al and Appeal Board af f i r med. See I n r e

Tam, No. 85472044, 108 U. S. P. Q. 2d ( BNA) 1305 ( T. T. A. B. 2013) .



3

The Board expl ai ned t hat t he proposed mar k i s used t o r ef er t o

an i dent i f i abl e gr oup of peopl e - - per sons of Asi an ancest r y - -

and t hat t he mar k i s di spar agi ng t o a subst ant i al composi t e of

such peopl e. The Boar d f ur t her expl ai ned t hat i t s r ef usal t o

r egi st er t he mark was consi st ent wi t h t he Fi r st Amendment

because deni al of r egi st r at i on does not suppr ess speech or

pr oscr i be conduct ; r at her , i t si mpl y pr event s r espondent f r om

cal l i ng upon t he r esour ces of t he f eder al gover nment t o assi st

hi m i n enf or ci ng t he mar k.

2. A panel of t he cour t of appeal s af f i r med. See I n r e

Tam, 785 F. 3d 567 ( Fed. Ci r . 2015) , vacat ed on r ehear i ng, No.

2014- 2013, 600 Fed. Appx. 775 ( Fed. Ci r . 2015) . The cour t f i r st

r ej ect ed r espondent ’ s ar gument t hat t he Boar d had er r ed i n

f i ndi ng t he mar k di spar agi ng under Sect i on 2( a) . The cour t

concl uded t hat subst ant i al evi dence suppor t s t he Boar d’ s

concl usi ons t hat “t he mark THE SLANTS r ef ers t o peopl e of Asi an

descent ” and t hat t he mar k “i s l i kel y of f ensi ve t o a subst ant i al

composi t e of peopl e of Asi an descent . ” I d. at 570- 571. The

cour t not ed t hat “t he def i ni t i ons i n evi dence uni ver sal l y

char act er i ze t he wor d ‘ sl ant ’ as di spar agi ng, of f ensi ve, or an

et hni c sl ur when used t o ref er t o a per son of Asi an descent . ”

I d. at 571.

The cour t r ej ect ed r espondent ’ s var i ous const i t ut i onal

chal l enges, i ncl udi ng hi s f aci al Fi r st Amendment chal l enge t o



4

t he di spar agement provi si on i n Sect i on 2( a) . Rel yi ng on ci r cui t

pr ecedent , t he cour t expl ai ned t hat “t he PTO’ s r ef usal t o

r egi st er [ t he] mar k does not af f ect hi s r i ght t o use i t ”; “[ n] o

conduct i s pr oscr i bed, and no t angi bl e f or m of expr essi on i s

suppr essed”; and so respondent ’ s Fi r st Amendment r i ght s are not

“abr i dged by t he r ef usal t o r egi st er hi s mar k. ” 785 F. 3d at

571- 572 ( quot i ng I n r e McGi nl ey, 660 F. 2d 481, 484 ( C. C. P. A.

1981) ) ; see i bi d. ( ci t i ng ot her Feder al Ci r cui t deci si ons

r eachi ng t he same concl usi on) . J udge Moor e, t he aut hor of t he

panel opi ni on, ur ged t he cour t t o “r evi si t [ i t s pr i or ] hol di ng

on t he const i t ut i onal i t y of § 2( a) of t he Lanham Act . ” I d. at

573 ( Moor e, J . , pr ovi di ng addi t i onal vi ews) .

3. The en banc cour t of appeal s hel d Sect i on 2( a)

f aci al l y unconst i t ut i onal under t he Fi r st Amendment , vacat ed t he

Boar d’ s deci si on, and r emanded f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs. See

App. , i nf r a, 1a- 47a. The government had argued t hat Congr ess

may, consi st ent wi t h t he Fi r st Amendment , cr eat e an opt i onal

pr ogr am of f eder al t r ademar k r egi st r at i on wi t hout openi ng t hat

pr ogr am t o r aci al sl ur s or ot her di spar agi ng mar ks. See i d. at

16a. The cour t r ej ect ed t hat char act er i zat i on of t he pr ogr am,

deci di ng t hat t he t r ademar k r egi st r at i on scheme i s a l aw

“penal i z[ i ng] pr i vat e speech merel y because [ t he gover nment ]

di sappr oves of t he message i t conveys. ” I d. at 8a; see i d. at

12a- 19a. The cour t subj ect ed t he di spar agement pr ovi si on of



5

Sect i on 2( a) t o st r i ct scrut i ny and f ound i t unconst i t ut i onal

because ther e i s no “subst ant i al gover nment i nt er est j ust i f yi ng

t he § 2( a) bar on di spar agi ng mar ks. ” I d. at 15a, 26a- 28a.

J udge O’ Mal l ey ( j oi ned by J udge Wal l ach) f i l ed a concur r i ng

opi ni on suggest i ng t hat Sect i on 2( a) “i s al so unconst i t ut i onal l y

vague. ” App. , i nf r a, 28a. J udge Dyk concur r ed i n par t and

di ssent ed i n par t . He woul d have hel d t hat Sect i on 2( a) i s

f aci al l y const i t ut i onal because r egi st r at i on i s a gover nment

benef i t f or commerci al speech t hat r easonabl y may be deni ed t o

di spar agi ng mar ks, i d. at 35a- 38a, but t hat Sect i on 2( a) i s

unconst i t ut i onal as appl i ed t o respondent ’ s mar k because t hat

mar k i nvol ves “pol i t i cal ” speech, i d. at 38a- 39a. 1 J udge Lour i e

di ssent ed, concl udi ng t hat Sect i on 2( a) i s const i t ut i onal

because i t does not pr ohi bi t any speech but i nst ead per mi ssi bl y

r ef uses t o pl ace t he f eder al gover nment ’ s i mpr i matur on pr i vat e

di spar agi ng speech. I d. at 39a- 40a. J udge Reyna al so

di ssent ed, expr essi ng t he vi ew t hat Sect i on 2( a) i s a

per mi ssi bl e r egul at i on of commer ci al speech because i t “di r ect l y

advances t he gover nment ’ s subst ant i al i nt er est i n t he or der l y

f l ow of commer ce. ” I d. at 40a- 44a.

1 J udge Dyk was j oi ned by J udges Lour i e and Reyna wi t hr espect t o hi s concl usi on t hat Sect i on 2( a) i s f aci al l yconst i t ut i onal , but not wi t h r espect t o hi s concl usi on t hatSect i on 2( a) i s unconst i t ut i onal as appl i ed. See App. , i nf r a,32a.



6

4. The cour t of appeal s’ deci si on decl ar es an Act of

Congr ess unconst i t ut i onal . The Sol i ci t or Gener al i s exami ni ng

t he l egal and pr act i cal si gni f i cance of t he cour t of appeal s’

deci si on. Addi t i onal t i me i s needed f or consul t at i on wi t h ot her

component s of t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce and wi t h i nt erest ed

f eder al agenci es, and, i f cer t i or ar i i s aut hor i zed, f or

pr epar i ng and pr i nt i ng t he pet i t i on.

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed.

DONALD B. VERRI LLI , J R.Sol i ci t or Gener al

Counsel of Recor d

MARCH 2016

application for an extension of time within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the...

Documents