David Levitt Discusses SCOTUS Ruling that Disparaging Trademarks are Protected Speech
In The News | less than 1 min read
Oct 19, 2017
David Levitt, a Hinshaw partner and trial lawyer, discusses in the Fall 2017 edition of DRI's In-House Defense Quarterly the U.S. Supreme Court Decision in Matal v. Tam, that considered whether prohibiting "disparaging" trademarks was constitutional. In a ruling published earlier this summer, the Court determined that such trademarks were protected speech under the First Amendment. The case received considerable media attention, due to efforts to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins under the "disparagement" definition contained in §1052(a) of the Lanham Act.
Read the full article (PDF)
Featured Insights

Webinar
Oct 29, 2026
Carol Rooney Presents on Building a Career in Appellate Practice

In The News
Oct 28, 2026
James Ferrara Comments in The New York Times on Stalled Boca Raton Luxury Condo Project

Insights for Insurers Alert
Oct 28, 2026
Insurance and Reinsurance Commutations, Run-Off, and Loss Portfolio Transfers

Healthcare Alert
Oct 27, 2026
Illinois Medical Aid-in-Dying Law Takes Effect Amid Legal Challenges

In The News
Oct 26, 2026
Scott Seaman Examines the Insurance Coverage Implications of a Recent NFL Concussion Ruling

In The News
Oct 23, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses Potential Impact of Proposition 44 on California Community Clinics

In The News
Oct 21, 2026
Scott Seaman Says Walmart Ruling is an "Aberration" in the Opioid Insurance Battle

Event
October 21 – 23, 2026
D.L. Morriss Presents on International Banking Litigation and AI Regulation





