When I studied constitutional law in law school, one subject was certainly never mentioned in that class: trademarks. After last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Matal v. Tam (582 U.S. ____ (2017)), that may change.

Simon Tam is the lead singer for an ­Asian-American rock band called The Slants. He chose the name of his band in order to “reclaim” and “take ownership” of a stereotype about people of Asian ­ancestry. By including the word “Slants” in his band's name, Tam sought to “reappropriate” the term, so that it would lose its derogatory nature and be seen instead as a source of pride.

He sought registration of the service mark The Slants in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), an important step in establishing his band and seeking business deals with record companies. But the USPTO refused, concluding that the name of his band The Slants was offensive, and citing what has been called “the disparagement clause” of the federal trademark laws (“No trademark … shall be refused registration unless it … consists of … matter which may disparage,” 15 U.S.C. Section 1052(a)). Tam argued that the word Slant was not ­inherently ­offensive—it could be used to describe a line at an angle. But the USPTO ­refused registration based on how Tam used the mark “as the name of an all ­Asian-American band.” In other words, ­because Tam was seeking protection for the service mark The Slants as an individual of Asian descent, the USPTO ­concluded that his mark was disparaging, and therefore refused to register the mark.