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
Apr 29, 2026
When a Cyber Breach Hits: Cybersecurity, Privacy, and Compliance

In The News
Apr 24, 2026
Michael Dowell Reviews New PBM Reform Reshaping Pharmacy Reimbursement

Lawyers for the Profession® Alert
Apr 21, 2026
When Does a Client’s Duty to Investigate Begin? Lessons from a Time-Barred Malpractice Case

Press Release
Apr 20, 2026
Tom Kuzmanovic Selected for BizTimes Milwaukee 2026 Notable Leaders in Law

Press Release
Apr 17, 2026
André Sesler Elected to the Board of Trustees of the University of Florida Law Center Association

Hinshaw Alert
Apr 17, 2026
Q&A: How to Submit Your IEEPA Refund Claim as CAPE Portal Launches April 20, 2026

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Bloomberg Law Recaps Panels Presented at Hinshaw's 25th Anniversary LMRM Conference

In The News
Apr 14, 2026
Michael Dowell Discusses the Uncertain Impact of Growing Medicare Advantage Scrutiny

Privacy, Cyber & AI Decoded Alert
Apr 9, 2026
6 Key Takeaways From the IAPP 2026 Global Summit for Privacy Compliance Professionals




