Will Lee v. Tam End The TTB’s Censorship of Beer Wine and Spirits Labels Found Obscene or Indecent?

As the US awaits a verdict in Lee v. Tam – a trademark dispute challenging a section of the trademark act (15 U.S.C. 1052(a)) refusing trademark registration for marks that are deemed immoral or scandalous, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s implementation and application of those restrictions – it would benefit us to be reminded of another potential first amendment problem for a federal agency that Tam may resolve.  The use of obscene or indecent “statements, designs, devices or representations” is prohibited for wine, spirits, and beer labels under their respective federal regulations. 27 CFR 4.39(a)(3)  27 CFR 5.42(a)(3)  27 CFR 7.29(a)(3) (respectively)

These restrictions on alcohol labeling are dutifully enforced by the TTB (anyone remember Dogfish’s Golden Shower?), amounting to similar viewpoint discrimination and a government imposed restriction on speech.  With one caveat – while denial of a trademark keeps the applicant from enforcing certain rights, but doesn’t stop sales, denial of a label stops interstate commerce and in many states that require federal approval for state sales, it also prohibits intrastate commerce.

That’s right, the labeling restrictions carry a greater heft – basically, if you cannot achieve label approval, you cannot engage in interstate commerce, so the denial of approval based on a finding by the TTB that your label is “obscene or indecent” amounts to a ban on interstate sales based on speech – given that this carries a greater consequence, isn’t it more likely that a win for free speech in Tam will translate into greater freedom in labeling? Just a thought.

Scotusblog has the links to the amicus briefs filed in the case.  Of particular interest are the persuasive and authoritative stances taken in briefs filed by the ACLU and by the Constitutional Law Professors (Floyd Abrams wrote that one) in support of finding the restrictions unconstitutional abrogations of free speech.  The briefs show these types of restrictions for what they are:  naked abuses of authority set on restricting speech through content-based determinations.  And these arguments apply just as equally (if not more so) to claims that the authority and exercise of regulations by the TTB holding the content of alcohol labels “obscene or indecent” violate the first amendment.  Should the decision in Tam be favorable, it will only be a short time before some enterprising attorney institutes a challenge to the federal labeling restrictions and their state counterparts.

Ashley Brandt

Hi there! I’m happy you’re here. My name is Ashley Brandt and I’m an attorney in Chicago representing clients in the Food and Beverage, Advertising, Media, and Real Estate industries. A while back I kept getting calls and questions from industry professionals and attorneys looking for advice and information on a fun and unique area of law that I’m lucky enough to practice in. These calls represented a serious lack of, and need for, some answers, news, and information on the legal aspects of marketing and media. I've got this deep seeded belief that information should be readily available and that the greatest benefit from the information age is open access to knowledge... so ... this blog seemed like the best way to accomplish that. I enjoy being an attorney and it’s given me some amazing opportunities, wonderful experiences, and an appreciation and love for this work. I live in Chicago and work at an exceptional law firm, Goldstein & McClintock, with some truly brilliant people. Feel free to contact me at any time with any issues, comments, concerns… frankly, after reading this far, I hope you take the time to at least let me know what you think about the blog and how I can make it a better resource.

You may also like...

2 Responses

  1. January 11, 2019

    […] when the Court decided Tam we made the case that the ruling about disparaging marks – and many other types of content… would be held unconstitutional under the same rationale as Tam if anyone ever had need to challenge […]

  2. January 27, 2019

    […] when the Court decided Tam we made the case that the ruling about disparaging marks – and many other types of content… would be held unconstitutional under the same rationale as Tam if anyone ever had need to challenge […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: