Connection lost
Server error
Matal v. Tam Case Brief
Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go
Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The Supreme Court held that a federal law prohibiting the registration of “disparaging” trademarks violates the First Amendment. The law constituted impermissible viewpoint discrimination by favoring speech that was not offensive over speech that was.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that denying federal benefits like trademark registration based on the expressive content of speech is unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. It also narrowly construes the government speech doctrine, affirming that trademarks are private, not government, speech.
Matal v. Tam Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Simon Tam, an Asian-American, is the frontman for the band “The Slants.” Tam chose the name to “reclaim” and “take ownership” of a term often used as a racial slur against people of Asian descent, thereby transforming its meaning. He sought to register the band’s name as a trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).
An examiner for the PTO denied the application under the Lanham Act’s “disparagement clause,” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). This clause prohibits federal registration of any trademark that “may disparage… persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.” The examiner found the mark was likely to be offensive to a substantial composite of people of Asian descent.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed the denial. Tam appealed, arguing the disparagement clause was facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The government defended the statute, arguing that trademarks are government speech or, alternatively, a government subsidy, and therefore not subject to traditional First Amendment scrutiny.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause, which prohibits the federal registration of trademarks that may disparage persons or groups, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
Yes. The disparagement clause is facially unconstitutional because it discriminates based on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliqui
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does the Lanham Act’s disparagement clause, which prohibits the federal registration of trademarks that may disparage persons or groups, violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
Conclusion
The decision strongly reaffirms that viewpoint discrimination is presumptively unconstitutional, even when Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea comm
Legal Rule
A federal law that denies a government benefit to private speech on Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequ
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court, in a unanimous judgment with multiple opinions, held that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Lanham Act’s “disparagement clause,” which bars registration of offensive trademarks,
