A Slanted View
by Simon Tam
I play bass in what’s often known as the first and only all-Asian American dance rock band in the world. We perform at many of the largest Asian cultural festivals in North America. We’ve been featured in and on over 1,500 radio stations, websites, magazines, and tv shows talking about the Asian American experience. My band members and I often facilitate workshops on cultural diversity, racism, and stereotypes about Asian and Asian American culture. In fact, when you look up information on the band, it’s hard to find anything that doesn’t associate us with Asian American culture, which is why when the U.S Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) said that our band was disparaging to persons of Asian descent, I was rather shocked.
The name that I and my cohort of pan-Asian Americans chose for the band is The Slants. We deliberately chose this outdated, generational term to inject pride into Asian American culture. Because of the broad support that we’ve had from Asian Pacific Americans (APAs) — not only from media and blogs, but lifelong activists who are aware of the sensitivities of the community at large — we never expected the USPTO to have an issue when we filed for a trademark on the band’s name.
The Trademark Office doesn’t allow terms that are deemed disparaging to be approved. In order for them to reject an application for a trademark on these grounds, they have to show that a substantial composite of the referenced group are offended by the word.
When we responded to the Trademark Office with evidence of support from the community, we included dozens of examples of Asian Pacific American media supporting our band. Well-known lifelong APA activists wrote letters of support for our use of the name. We also showed other examples of Asian Americans using the term “Slant” in a positive manner, such as major APA Film Festival “Slant” and Chicago-based TV show “The Slant.”
So what kind of evidence did the USPTO bring to demonstrate the collected outrage of APAs who are offended by our name?
First, they cited UrbanDictionary.com. Then they found an anonymous post on a message board from someone who said they didn’t like our name. After that, they put in photographs of Miley Cyrus making a slant-eye gesture. They sent this to us along with a rejection letter that said the vast support we demonstrated from the APA community was “laudable” but not influential.
This is what angers me the most: the Trademark Office decided that anonymous wiki sources mattered more than the voice of Asian Americans. Why does a government agency that has no connection with APAs have the right to dictate what is appropriate for our community? Why don’t we have the right to decide for ourselves?
Our plight reminds me of another case. You might know of the NFL team The Washington Redskins. The litigation over their name has been going on since 1992; however, in this case, the Trademark Office continues to defend the name despite formal objections, legal challenges and lawsuits from Native Americans who find the term “Redskins” to be an offensive racial slur. Again, a government agency that has no connection with the referenced community is making decisions as to what is appropriate or offensive for them. In our case, they deny our trademark in the absence of any valid complaints from Asian Americans. With Native Americans, they continue to defend “Redskins” even in the face of formal objections.
The role of the government shouldn’t include deciding what a group can define themselves, as that right should belong to the community itself. While I would love to win the trademark to protect my band’s name – and frankly to end the process because it’s been a long and expensive one – this case is bigger than “The Slants.” This will help determine what other community groups can do in the future.
Perhaps what I find most disturbing about all of this is that in the entire history of the United States Trademark Office, there has only been one case that triggered the “race” issue when it comes to the term “slant.” That’s my case. None of the dozens of other applications were even flagged for having a possible derogatory connection with the Asian community. They believe that because I am of Asian descent myself (unlike the other trademark applicants in the past), people will automatically associate it with Asian culture at large. In other words, if a non-Asian applicant was trying to trademark “The Slants,” this would not be an issue.
Sure, I could probably sidestep this if I let someone with a more “white” sounding name apply for this trademark on my behalf or if I replace everyone in my band with non-Asians, but that would not change the law for everyone else who is not part of the dominant culture being unfairly targeted by this law. I want to change this outdated, biased law.
Then again, my view is a little “slanted.”
Marylhurst community, would you join me in this endeavor? Are you interested in being a part of changing history for communities affected by poor laws? Whether you are studying law, business, intercultural exchange or you just want to be a part of something that is meaningful to us as Americans, I would love to talk to you more about joining the cause. It doesn’t take much, just a willing heart. Please send me an email at simontam@theslants.com.
Simon Tam is a musician, author, marketer and social justice activist. He is currently pursuing an MBA at Marylhurst University and can be found at simontam.biz and Twitter @SimonTheTam. A different version of this article was published in Where Are You From? An Anthology of Asian American Writing (2012).
Photo: The Slants, photographed by Ro Tam
On the fence here… I can sort of see why they did it, as I’m sure they wouldn’t allow an all-black band to call themselves “The Ni****s.” That said, if it’s about YOU and YOU aren’t offended, who the hell cares what you call yourselves? Their reasoning would be sound if it were not for the fact that they have virtually ignored legitimate complaints of offense from Native Americans. It’s like you can make fun of yourself and the trademark is rejected, but when someone else makes fun of you the joke still stands. That’s not kosher with me.
I have zero problems with you guys calling yourselves “The Slants,” but I *do* have a problem with the rules about racial offense regarding trademark names being selectively applied, especially after you guys took the precaution of justifying yourselves and they responded with Urban Dictionary. Uncle Kracker, I am sure, was given no questions when he trademarked that name. I wonder what would happen if I, a white woman, sued Atlantic Records and Matthew Shafer (Kracker himself) while applying to have his trademark revoked? Not that I would do so, but “cracker” is an offensive term, as are “Redskins” and the logo for the Cleveland Indians. Yet, things stand as the way they are, and you’re not being allowed to trademark your OWN ironically funny and self-derisiver band name? Idiotic. In a time when over 50% of Asian children are the targets of racial bullying, you would think that people who make an attempt to take the sting and power away from such a term would be applauded, not confronted with a chinky-eyed Miley Cyrus, but I guess not:
http://www.abcsofattraction.com/blog/the-racist-bullying-crisis-why-54-of-asian-american-children-are-targeted-by-bullies/
Anyway, congrats to you guys, good luck, and the guy in the car is sexy as Hell.
Hi Alice,
Thank you for your comments. Actually, the black hip hop group NWA (Niggaz Wit Attitudes) do have their trademark but only in the acronym. It is a strange law that is selectively applied. One of the most famous cases is “Heeb Media,” who has a trademark for their Jewish magazine. When they applied for a trademark on their clothing line, that examining attorney rejected it, saying it was disparaging to Jews…even though the same office gave them the trademark for the magazine.
“The role of the government shouldn’t include deciding what a group can define themselves, as that right should belong to the community itself.”
The government is not deciding what your band can be named, much less how anyone is “defined,” it is only saying that you cant get a trademark on this term. A trademark would allow you to exclude others from the use of your mark and give you a right to sue for infringement in court, which benefit goes far beyond the ability for you to name your band however you wish.
The government has legitimate reasons not to grant trademarks that are disparaging to others, such as marks that have potentially disparaging racial connotations. The simple fact is that no one voted you to be the leader of any “community.” That you may have found a few people to tell the PTO that your band name does not offend them does not mean that it is no longer offensive to other Asian-Americans. You chose to give your band a name loaded with racial connotations, with the specific purpose that this work as a marketing tool to promote your band. This is nothing but a self-righteousness crusade that you would be smart not to fight too hard, lest you actually win just before noticing that this self-manufactured stunt was the best publicity your band will ever have.
Hi,
First: The government is legislating commercial speech, which is a part of freedom of speech. Scholars have pointed out that the denial of benefits may be viewed as an abridgement of speech protected by the First Amendment.. . . Regulation of commercial speech may guard against such wrongs as fraud and false advertising, but not as a manner of suppression of social content.”). These constitutional infirmities are especially true when the mark denied registration is a so-called self-disparaging mark and is used by members of the allegedly disparaged group (often a discrete and insular minority) as artistic political-identity
speech rather than as traditional commercial speech.
But the bigger point is this: why would the Trademark Office single out an applicant who was of Asian descent but not apply the same rule to the nearly 100 other white applicants, if the word is strongly loaded with racial connotations as you claim? If the word is still so loaded with racial connotations, why has nearly ever major dictionary removed definitions about it being a possible reference to Asian Americans in recent years?
While I agree that no one has elected me to be the leader of the Asian American community, the same can be said about this law which was written in 1942, pre-”Civil Rights era:” Not one person of color was included in the decision to pass this law which unfairly targets minorities. Not one Asian American was involved in the decision of our case. Two national, independent surveys showed that an overwhelming majority of Asian Americans supported our use of the name.
Also, in regards to: “this self-manufactured stunt was the best publicity your band will ever have.”
I don’t think I could manufacture this level of stupidity and racism from the Trademark Office. If I had crated this from the beginning as a publicity stunt, I’d say that it would be a pretty ingenious marketing scheme indeed.
Try Slands. The “sounds-like” feature on the Oregon State business name search comes up with same results including your band; It’s not a word; you get 99% your way while you fight the principle (if you choose to fight). A url redirect from the spelling difference might be helpful however.
Thank you
The truth is that I care more about re-shaping a bad, highly subjective law, than I do about winning this for myself. We could have easily won had I allowed one of my white friends to apply for the mark and just transfer the trademark to me… “slant” has never been questioned as a potentially racist term by the Trademark Office when a white applicant filed. They only applied it to me because my Chinese name made the application file seem “Asian.” In fact, other than my name, there was nothing in the file that even alluded to us being Asian Americans. The Trademark Office attorney explicitly told us that by us being Asian, people are going to gravitate towards the disparaging definition, even though the term is not commonly used as such.
Also, it wouldn’t make sense for us to change the name at this point since we have multiple albums out, etc. But it’s a nice thought
The thought had crossed our minds to change it to something even more obscure or just ridiculous, like The Squints.
Would getting a trademark for the acronym work? SLANT is an acronym in education, but maybe you can obtain IP for another category, where the acronym defines your purpose. Here’s a draft: Stand up, Love All Nationalities The Same. Why not use some of your creativity to work around the issue while having a perpetual excuse to make it a rallying cry. You continue to get publicity from this bit of history; you get your IP, show more of your creativity, and save yourself from burning up your energy on a politically associated institution where no regulated solution has any permanance. Politics is an unstable system with temporary states of apparent stability.
cheers!
Hi,
While that’s a clever way to pursue the name, in our case, it still wouldn’t help us because I would be associated with the mark. When we submitted our application, it was “ethnic neutral.” However, rather than going by the standard dictionary definitions or common use of the word (perspective, angle), etc.), the examining attorney went with an obscure racial slur because of my ethnic heritage. The acronym wouldn’t hide that. In essence, I am “banned” for life from ever obtaining the trademark, even if I was not using it in a disparaging manner, because intent is not taken into consideration. It’s also why in all of U.S history, applications for “slant” and even “chink” by whites have not once triggered an accusation of the word being naturally derogatory. So even though I can change how I use the name, I cannot change my ethnicity….and therefore will always lose unless the law changes or we win in appeals court.
There are plenty of examples of patents having derogatory inferences for “whites” that were awarded to “whites”. You can probably win appeal on inconsistent use of regulations and on meeting the spirit of the purpose of the offending regulation. Good luck!
You’re correct, there are many, many examples of this occurring (both with inconsistencies and with whites or others having potentially “disparaging” marks). Unfortunately, they have little to no weight in the trademark court system. Thank you though, we’re certainly going to keep trying
Simon, I stumbled on this reference while exploring variations of open software/hardware licensing solutions: Anten, Todd (2006), “Self-Disparaging Trademarks and Social Change: Factoring the Reappropriation of Slurs into Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act”, Columbia Law Review 106: 338 http://www.jstor.org/stable/4099495
Also, perhaps the common law ™ mark would be protective enough, while you appeal.
Best wishes, cheers,
Hi,
Thanks for the resource! I’ll check it out later today. I’ve been compiling articles for a while now but haven’t read this one yet. There’s another great one in the EBSCO system of interest – “CALLING BULLS**T ON THE LANHAM ACT: THE 2(a) BAR FOR IMMORAL, SCANDALOUS, AND DISPARAGING MARKS.”
I have two weeks until we go before the appeals court. Fingers crossed!