No. 18-302 In the Supreme Court of the United States ANDREI IANCU, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PETITIONER v. ERIK BRUNETTI ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI NOEL J. FRANCISCO Solicitor General Counsel of Record JOSEPH H. HUNT Assistant Attorney General MALCOLM L. STEWART SARAH HARRIS Deputy Solicitor General General Counsel JONATHAN Y. ELLIS JOSEPH MATAL Assistant to the Solicitor Acting Solicitor General ARK REEMAN CHRISTINA J. HIEBER M R. F ANIEL ENNY THOMAS L. CASAGRANDE D T MARY BETH WALKER JOSHUA M. SALZMAN MOLLY R. SILFEN Attorneys Associate Solicitors Department of Justice U.S. Patent and Trademark Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 Office [email protected] Alexandria, Va. 22314 (202) 514-2217 QUESTION PRESENTED Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), provides in pertinent part that a trademark shall be re- fused registration if it “[c]onsists of or comprises im- moral * * * or scandalous matter.” The question pre- sented is as follows: Whether Section 1052(a)’s prohibition on the federal registration of “immoral” or “scandalous” marks is fa- cially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. (I) TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Opinions below .............................................................................. 1 Jurisdiction .................................................................................... 1 Constitutional and statutory provisions involved ...................... 2 Statement ...................................................................................... 2 Reasons for granting the petition ............................................. 10 I. The court of appeals’ invalidation of an Act of Congress warrants this Court’s review ....................... 10 II. The court of appeals erred in holding that the scandalous-marks provision is unconstitutional ......... 12 A. This Court’s decision in Matal v. Tam is not controlling here ....................................................... 12 B. Section 1052(a) does not restrict speech ............... 15 C. The scandalous-marks provision establishes a lawful eligibility requirement for federal trademark registration ........................................... 18 III. The question presented is important ........................... 24 Conclusion ................................................................................... 25 Appendix A — Court of appeals opinion (Dec. 15, 2017) .............................................. 1a Appendix B — Trademark Trial and Appeal B oard opinion (Aug. 1, 2014) ................ 55a Appendix C — Court of appeals order denying rehearing en banc (Apr. 12, 2018) ............................. 68a Appendix D — Statutory provision ...................................... 70a TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Agency for Int’l Dev. v. Alliance for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013) ............................................... 19, 20 Ashcrof t v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) ............................... 11 B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (2015) ..................................................... 3, 16 (III) IV Cases—Continued: Page Bethel Sch. Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) .................................................................................... 14 Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142 (1927) .............................. 11 Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601 (1973) ...................... 11 Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980) ......................................... 8, 22 City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) ............................................................... 22 Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 539 U.S. 23 (2003) ............................................................... 21 Davenport v. Washington Educ. Ass’n, 551 U.S. 177 (2007) .................................................................................... 20 Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ............................... 21 FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502 (2009) .................................................................................... 22 Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U.S. 1 (1979) ............................... 21 General Media Commc’ns, Inc. v. Cohen, 131 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 951 (1998) ....... 14 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) .................................................................................... 11 Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017).......................... passim PMG Int’l Div., L.L.C. v. Rumsfeld, 303 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2002) ...................................................................... 14 Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U.S. 189 (1985)................................................................ 2 Perry v. McDonald, 280 F.3d 159 (2d Cir. 2001) .......... 14, 15 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) ...................................................................................... 3 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015) .................. 15 Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U.S. 540 (1983)........................................................ 18, 19 V Cases—Continued: Page Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995).............................................................. 15 Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981) .............................. 11 Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) .............................. 7, 18 San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Comm., 483 U.S. 522 (1987) ................... 21 Tam, In re, 808 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ......................... 15 Trade-Mark Cases, In re, 100 U.S. 82 (1879) ................. 3, 16 Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, 137 S. Ct. 2012 (2017) ............................................ 19 Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763 (1992) ...................................................................................... 3 United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012) .................... 11 United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000)........................................................ 17, 18 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) .................... 11 United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) ................. 11 Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) ....... 18 Constitution, treaty, and statutes: U.S. Const. Amend. I (Free Speech Clause) ............. passim Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property art. 6quinquies, July 14, 1967, 21 U.S.T. 1643, 828 U.N.T.S. 331 ................................................................. 24 Act of July 8, 1870, ch. 230, §§ 77-84, 16 Stat. 210-212 ......... 3 Act of Feb. 20, 1905, ch. 592, 33 Stat. 724 ............................. 3 § 5, 33 Stat. 725 ............................................................ 4, 24 Lanham Act, ch. 540, 60 Stat. 427 (15 U.S.C. 1051 et seq.)..................................................................................... 3 15 U.S.C. 1051(a)(1) ........................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1052 .................................................. 2, 4, 17, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(a) (§ 2(a)) ................................ passim, 70a VI Statutes—Continued: Page 15 U.S.C. 1052(b) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(c) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(d) ....................................................... 4, 70a 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(1) ................................................... 4, 72a 15 U.S.C. 1052(e)(5) ................................................... 4, 72a 15 U.S.C. 1057(a) ............................................................. 19 15 U.S.C. 1057(b) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1065 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1071(a) ............................................................. 25 15 U.S.C. 1072 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1111 .................................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1115(a) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1115(b) ............................................................... 4 15 U.S.C. 1117(a) ............................................................. 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(a) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(b) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1125(d) ......................................................... 3, 16 15 U.S.C. 1127 .............................................................. 2, 16 15 U.S.C. 1141b ................................................................ 24 28 U.S.C. 1295(a)(4)(B) ......................................................... 25 Miscellaneous: USPTO, Examination Guide 2-18: Examination Guidance for Compliance with Section 2(a)’s Scan- dalousness Provision While Constitutionality Re- mains in Question during Period to Petition for Certiorari to U.S. Supreme Court (May 24, 2018), http://www.uspto.gov/trademark/guides-and- manuals/trademark-examination-guides