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 "prohibit[s] the registration of trademarks that may 'disparage ... or bring ... into contemp[t] 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.

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