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

Press Release
Oct 9, 2026
Adam Topel Appointed Chair-Elect of the ABA’s TIPS Appellate Advocacy Committee

Press Release
Oct 8, 2026
Technology Service Corporation Closes on Acquisition by Blackstone-Backed Purchaser

Employment Law Observer
Oct 8, 2026
“We Didn’t Know” is No Longer an Employer Defense for Religious Accommodation Claims Under Title VII

In The News
Oct 8, 2026
Lucy Wang Analyzes What Insurers Need to Know About Two New California Laws

Lawyers' Lawyer Newsletter
Oct 8, 2026
The Rise of Management Service Organizations: How Lawyers and Lawmakers are Responding

In The News
Oct 7, 2026
Scott Seaman Discusses Google’s Coverage Battle Over Social Media Addiction Claims

Consumer Crossroads: Where Financial Services and Litigation Intersect
Oct 6, 2026
Mixed Messages Ongoing as Courts Disagree Whether Texts Constitute “Calls” Under the TCPA






