." ♪ we sing for japanese and the chinese ♪ >> reporter: with a name founder simon tam says is a keyof the message. >> i was ridiculed as a kid for having slanted eyes. now it's -- i'm saying it's something that i can be proud of. it's not something to be ashamed of. >> reporter: the trademark office denied the slant's application saying its name disparages asian americans. at the supreme court, tam said that violates his first amendment rights. >> if the government truly cared about fighting racist messages, they would have canceled the registrations for numerous white supremacist groups before they even approached our case. >> reporter: the government has awarded trademarks to groups like the ku klux klan, as well as other bands that refer to race in their name, like nwa, and uncle kracker. ♪ follow me, everything is all right ♪ >> reporter: in court, some of the justices clearly were troubled. justice ruth bader ginsburg asked, "does it not count at all that everyone knows that the slants is using this term not at all to disparage but simply to describe?" but they also seemed conc

." ♪ we sing for the japanese and the chinese ♪ >> reporter: with a name founder simon tam says is at of the message. >> i was ridiculed as a kid for having slanted eyes. now it's-- i'm saying it's something that i can be proud of. it's not something to be ashamed of. >> reporter: the trademark office denied the slant's application saying its name disparages asian americans. at the supreme court, tam said that violates his first amendment rights. >> if the government truly cared about fighting racist messages, they would have canceled the registrations for numerous white supremacist groups before they even approached our case. >> reporter: the government has awarded trademarks to groups like the ku klux klan, as well as other bands that refer to race in their name, like n.w.a. and uncle kracker. ♪ follow me everything is all right ♪ >> reporter: in court, some of the justices clearly were troubled. justice ruth bader ginsburg ask, "does it not count at all that everyone knows that the slants is using this term not at all to disparage but simply to describe?" but they also seemed conc

simon tam, had stopped to register the mark the proud asians, we would not be here today. he did not do that, instead he saw to register the slants. suppose he had a ecological case, facts are largely parallel other than the van is non-asian, they use makeup to exaggerate slanted eyes, and they make fun of asians. -- could thernment government declined to register that as a trademark in your view? >> they could not. supreme court justice: first amendment protects outrageous speech as forestry marks are concerned. did you have to take that position. john: we take that position marks that constitute commercial speech and non- commercial speech and the disparagement clause targets the noncommercial speech and denies registration to marks that only express negative views. supreme court justice: in your view the congress could not try statute to make the distinction .hat hypotheticals point out the congress in your view can draw no statute denying trademark in a hypothetical. supreme court justice: i have a question. this is a bit different than most cases. no one is stopping y

simon tam, had sought to register the mark of his band as the proud asians, we would not be here today. but he did not do that. instead he sought to register the slants. >> suppose he had -- this hypothetical case. the facts are largely parallel to these. other than the band are non-asians. they use makeup to exaggerate slanted eyes. and they make fun of asians. could the government under a properly drawn statute decline to register that as a trademark in your view? >> they could not. first amendment protects absolutely outrageous speech insofar as trademarks are concerned. >> that is correct. >> i think you have to take that position. >> we take that position because -- because marks constitute commercial speech and non-commercial speech and the disparagement clause specifically targets the non-commercial speech and denied registration to marks that only express negative views. >> but in your view the congress could not draw a statute he even different -- to make the distinction that the hypothetical points out in the congress in your view can draw no statute denying trademark protect