Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito
WD filed suit against OGS, alleging that defendants violated its rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Constitution by denying WD's applications to participate as a food truck vendor in the Lunch Program based on its ethnic-slur branding. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, holding that defendants' action violated WD's equal protection rights and its rights under the New York State Constitution. In this case, it was undisputed that defendants denied WD's applications solely because of its ethnic-slur branding. In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court clarified that this action amounted to viewpoint discrimination and, if not government speech or otherwise protected, was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court rejected defendants' argument that their actions were unobjectionable because they were either part of OGS's government speech or permissible regulation of a government contractor's speech. View "Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito" on Justia Law
WD filed suit against OGS, alleging that defendants violated its rights under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, and the New York State Constitution by denying WD's applications to participate as a food truck vendor in the Lunch Program based on its ethnic-slur branding. The Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for defendant, holding that defendants' action violated WD's equal protection rights and its rights under the New York State Constitution. In this case, it was undisputed that defendants denied WD's applications solely because of its ethnic-slur branding. In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court clarified that this action amounted to viewpoint discrimination and, if not government speech or otherwise protected, was prohibited by the First Amendment. The court rejected defendants' argument that their actions were unobjectionable because they were either part of OGS's government speech or permissible regulation of a government contractor's speech. View "Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito" on Justia Law
OPEN ON 1ST PALM SUNDAY, OTB RAKES IN $2M
New York City Off-Track Betting made history yesterday, taking bets on Palm Sunday. Since 1973, when Sunday racing was made legal in New York State, race tracks have been allowed to operate every Sunday except for Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. While Aqueduct kept its doors shut, NYCOTB had its betting parlors open despite a letter from the New York State Racing and Wagering Board stating that it couldn't do so. "We're not a race track," NYCOTB president Ray Casey said. "OTB's business is a simulcasting business.
" Bettors responded by wagering an estimated $2 million yesterday on tracks from around the country, including Keeneland in Kentucky and Gulfstream Park in Florida. While in the past NYCOTB has respected the law and shut down on Palm Sunday, it took a chance this time because its business is down. "With the weather being the way it's been our handle has been off significantly," Casey said. "Our lawyers felt from their point of view that we could open (yesterday).
" The law says race tracks can't open. It doesn't mention OTBs. "I respect the Racing and Wagering Board and I have the utmost respect for chairman Michael Hoblock but I felt we're right on this one," Casey said. The NYSRWB didn't return phone calls yesterday but said on Saturday it would meet this week to discuss fines and penalties it can impose on NYCOTB. "This isn't personal," Casey said. "I just didn't agree with the board's interpretation.
" Casey also said NYCOTB may open on Easter Sunday.
New York City Off-Track Betting made history yesterday, taking bets on Palm Sunday. Since 1973, when Sunday racing was made legal in New York State, race tracks have been allowed to operate every Sunday except for Palm Sunday and Easter Sunday. While Aqueduct kept its doors shut, NYCOTB had its betting parlors open despite a letter from the New York State Racing and Wagering Board stating that it couldn't do so. "We're not a race track," NYCOTB president Ray Casey said. "OTB's business is a simulcasting business.
" Bettors responded by wagering an estimated $2 million yesterday on tracks from around the country, including Keeneland in Kentucky and Gulfstream Park in Florida. While in the past NYCOTB has respected the law and shut down on Palm Sunday, it took a chance this time because its business is down. "With the weather being the way it's been our handle has been off significantly," Casey said. "Our lawyers felt from their point of view that we could open (yesterday).
" The law says race tracks can't open. It doesn't mention OTBs. "I respect the Racing and Wagering Board and I have the utmost respect for chairman Michael Hoblock but I felt we're right on this one," Casey said. The NYSRWB didn't return phone calls yesterday but said on Saturday it would meet this week to discuss fines and penalties it can impose on NYCOTB. "This isn't personal," Casey said. "I just didn't agree with the board's interpretation.
" Casey also said NYCOTB may open on Easter Sunday.
High court strikes down 'scandalous' part of trademark law
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has struck down a section of federal law that prevented officials from registering trademarks seen as scandalous or immoral, handing a victory Monday to California fashion brand FUCT.
The high court ruled that the century-old provision is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. Between 2005 and 2015, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ultimately refused about 150 trademark applications a year as a result of the provision.
The high court's ruling means that the people and companies behind those failed applications can re-submit them for approval. And new trademark applications cannot be refused on the grounds they are scandalous or immoral.
Justice Elena Kagan wrote for a majority of the court that the "'immoral or scandalous' bar is substantially overbroad."
The Trump administration had defended the provision, arguing that it encouraged trademarks that are appropriate for all audiences.
The justices' ruling was in some ways expected because of one the court made two years ago . In 2017, the justices unanimously invalidated a related provision of federal lawthat told officials not to register disparaging trademarks, finding that restriction violated the First Amendment. In that case, an Asian-American rock band sued after the government refused to register its band name, "The Slants," because it was seen as offensive to Asians.
The latest decision could result in an uptick in requests to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to register trademarks that would have previously been considered scandalous or immoral. But Barton Beebe, a New York University law professor who has studied the provision the justices struck down and co-authored a Supreme Court brief in the case , said he thinks that's unlikely.
Beebe said he doesn't believe there's a large, pent-up demand for trademark registration by people refused it previously under the provision. He said most of the trademarks refused registration under the provision recently were for putting words on clothing.
That was what happened in the case the justices ruled on. Los Angeles-based FUCT began selling clothing in 1991. Federal officials refused to register the brand's name.
Like other companies denied trademark registration under the scandalous or immoral provision of the Lanham Act, the brand was still able to use the word officials declined to register. It just didn't get the benefits that come with registering a trademark. Erik Brunetti, the artist behind the brand, said that made it difficult for the brand to go after counterfeiters.
No comments:
Post a Comment