July 2 at 6:30 PM <\/p>\n
The June 20 editorial Free speech wins took the view thatthe Supreme Court decision striking down the restriction on trademarking offensive namessomehow represented an expansion of free speech.But the law at issue, theLanham Act,actually places limits on free speech by allowing trademark holders to excludecompetitors (or innovators, as classical liberals would say) from using trademarked names. Atrademark holder canseek the assistance of thefederal courtsin enforcing that exclusion. <\/p>\n
When the statute was written, offensive words could still be banned from public use and were not consideredeligible for trademark protection;free-speech protection has since been expanded to includesuch words. But make no mistake: The court, ostensibly in defense of free speech, has now expanded governmental trademark protection tooffensive speech. <\/p>\n
The outcome of the case may be legally correct, but by plugging the disparagementgap in the Lanham Act, the court, ironically, has limited free speech. <\/p>\n
Kenneth Hall, Rockville <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Read the rest here: July 2 at 6:30 PM The June 20 editorial Free speech wins took the view thatthe Supreme Court decision striking down the restriction on trademarking offensive namessomehow represented an expansion of free speech.But the law at issue, theLanham Act,actually places limits on free speech by allowing trademark holders to excludecompetitors (or innovators, as classical liberals would say) from using trademarked names. Atrademark holder canseek the assistance of thefederal courtsin enforcing that exclusion Continue reading
\nFree speech takes a hit - Washington Post<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"