Home » US Supreme Court takes up case dealing with the use of public figures’ names and likenesses in trademarks

US Supreme Court takes up case dealing with the use of public figures’ names and likenesses in trademarks

by Derek Andrews
0 comment Donate

The US Supreme Courtroom announced Monday it is going to take up the trademark case Vidal v. Elster, to find out whether or not the appliance of Part 2(c) of the Lanham Act to political figures violates the First Amendment.

The case surrounds the trademark application by Steve Elster for the phrase “Trump Too Small,” which Elster tried to trademark to be used on t-shirts. Elster’s utility was denied by the US Patents and Logos Workplace and the denial was upheld by the Trademark Trial and Attraction Board for violating Part 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which bars a trademark that “Consists of or includes a reputation, portrait, or signature figuring out a specific residing particular person besides by his written consent…”

Elster appealed the Board’s determination to the US Courtroom of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which ruled that the denial of the trademark infringed upon Elster’s free speech, citing Baumgartner v. United States, saying, “Particularly, ‘the appropriate to criticize public males’ is ‘[o]ne of the prerogatives of American citizenship.’” The court docket went on to cause that:

The federal government has no legitimate publicity curiosity that would overcome the First Modification protections afforded to the political criticism embodied in Elster’s mark. On account of the President’s standing as a public official, and since Elster’s mark communicates his disagreement with and criticism of the then-President’s method to governance, the federal government has no real interest in disadvantaging Elster’s speech.

The court docket additionally raised doubt as to the general constitutionality of Part 2(c) of the Lanham Act, saying:

It might be {that a} substantial variety of part 2(c)’s functions can be unconstitutional. The statute leaves the PTO no discretion to exempt emblems that advance parody, criticism, commentary on issues of public significance, creative transformation, or some other First Modification pursuits.

The federal government’s petition for a writ of certiorari criticized the appeals court docket’s ruling, saying, “The one impact of Part 1052(c) is to disclaim the proprietor ‘the ancillary advantages that include registration,’ together with ‘further protections in opposition to infringers,'” citing Iancu v. Brunetti.

The so-called ‘consent clause’ of Part 2(c), which requires written consent with a purpose to use the title of residing individuals in a trademark, has been controversial amongst mental property attorneys and First Modification authorized students for a while. In a piece for Bloomberg Legislation final yr, distinguished mental property lawyer David G. Barker advocated for the removing of the ‘consent clause,’ arguing that, “When society is torn by ideological battles by means of all angles of the political spectrum, we’d like vigorous debate with a rainbow of views. Maybe eradicating the consent clause from Part 2(c) of the Lanham Act would facilitate challenges to the established order.”

The the ‘disparagement’ and ‘immoral/scandalous’ clauses of Part 2(a) of the Lanham Act have already been discovered to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Courtroom in Brunetti and Matal v. Tam, however Part 2(c) has but to be addressed by the Courtroom.

Source / Picture: jurist.org

Donation for Author

Buy author a coffee

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 5 / 5. Vote count: 2

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

You may also like

Leave a Comment

@2023 LawyersRankings.com. All Right Reserved.