A Section 2(a) refusal is issued by the USPTO when an application is refused on the grounds that the mark consists of or comprises matter that is disparaging, scandalous, immoral, or deceptive.
Disparagement covers marks that offend a substantial composite of a referenced group. Scandalousness covers marks that are shocking or offensive to a significant portion of the general public. Deceptiveness covers marks that falsely suggest a connection with goods or services; for example, a mark that implies the product contains an ingredient it does not.
Overcoming a Section 2(a) refusal on scandalousness or disparagement grounds became significantly more difficult after the Supreme Court's decisions in Matal v. Tam (2017) and Iancu v. Brunetti (2019), which struck down the disparagement and scandalousness provisions as unconstitutional. Deceptiveness remains a valid ground for refusal.