Whether disparagement can be the basis of standing to challenge a trademark under the Lanham Act after Matal v. Tam

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), this Court held that the disparagement clause of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which “prohibitls] the registration of trademarks that may ‘disparage ... or bring ... into contemplt] or disrepute’ any ‘persons, living or dead,” Tam, 137 S. Ct. at 1751, quoting 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) (ellipses in original), violates the First Amendment. The question is whether Tam thereby precluded disparagement as the basis of one’s standing under Section 14 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1064, to challenge the validity of a trademark where the basis of the merits of the challenge, i.e., the challenger’s assertion as to why the mark is invalid, is unrelated to disparagement. 2. Whether a federal appeals court abuses its authority by sanctioning a party for arguing in favor of his position, even though: (i) the arguments and the position are meritorious; and (ii) the court claimed that the party had conceded that his position had been foreclosed by a decision of this Court, whereas the party, rather than having made such a concession, had argued that his position was not foreclosed by that decision. 1