News & Analysis as of

First Amendment › Lanham Act › Trademarks

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech... more +
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the government from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech or the press, preventing citizens from peacefully assembling, or interfering with citizens' ability to petition the government for redress of their grievances. The First Amendment is one of the most sacred aspects of the American legal tradition and has spawned a vast body of jurisprudence and commentary. less -
Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass

Monkey Business No More: Ninth Circuit Rules NFTs Are Protected by Trademark Law, Confirms the Limits of Expressive Speech...

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass on

Key Takeaways - The Ninth Circuit confirmed that non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are ‘goods’ under the Lanham Act and can be protected by trademark law....more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Spotlight or Lawsuit? Strategic Brand Use in Film and Media

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

When The White Lotus returned to HBO for its third season, it came with the usual dose of dramatic tension, along with one unexpected intellectual property wrinkle. [WARNING – Potential Plot Spoiler Ahead!] In a particularly...more

Baker Donelson

Trademark Trouble: When the F-Word Fails to Function

Baker Donelson on

Recent Supreme Court decisions underscore how viewpoint-based refusals of trademark applications are unconstitutional. But can these viewpoint-based refusals survive under the "failure-to-function" doctrine instead?...more

Venable LLP

Out of the Doghouse? Jack Daniel's Marks Tarnished but Not Infringed by Bad Spaniels Toy

Venable LLP on

On January 23, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of Arizona issued a final decision ending the intensely disputed, decade-long litigation between Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. and VIP Products LLC....more

McDermott Will & Emery

Dog Toy Maker in the Doghouse (Again) for Tarnishing Jack Daniel’s Marks

McDermott Will & Emery on

Addressing this case for the third time, the US District Court for the District of Arizona found on remand that Jack Daniel’s was entitled to a permanent injunction after finding that VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy...more

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP

The Supreme Court and Intellectual Property in 2024-2025: What Was Decided, What Is To Come And What Was Declined

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP on

In wrapping up the 2023-24 term and embarking on the 2024-25 term, the Supreme Court was asked to decide a number of intellectual property cases. The Court issued several significant opinions in 2024 and has taken several...more

Willcox & Savage

Trump Too Small: The Lanham Act Names Clause

Willcox & Savage on

To guide potential trademark owners and to foster strong protection for trademarks under U.S. law, the Lanham Act; 15 U.S.C. §1052, defines the types of trademarks and service which marks can be registered by whittling away...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Rebel Libertarians Aren’t at Liberty to Violate Lanham Act

McDermott Will & Emery on

In a case that required the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to articulate the boundary between the Lanham Act and the First Amendment when the trademark in question is the name of a political party, the Court found...more

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints

Supreme Court Doesn’t Want to Play the Name Game: Prohibition Against Using a Person’s Name in a Registered Mark Without Consent...

Mintz - Intellectual Property Viewpoints on

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering trademarks utilizing another person's name without consent was constitutional. In Vidal v. Elster 602 U. S. ____ (2024), the Supreme...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

[Webinar] Trademark Trends: A Mid-Year Review - July 17th, 1:00 pm - 2:00 pm EDT

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

Join Sterne Kessler’s Global Trademark & Brand Protection team for our mid-year review webinar, when we will take a closer look at the latest developments in trademark law. From recent court decisions to industry-trends, our...more

Haug Partners LLP

Supreme Court Upholds Validity of Names Clause in Trump Too Small Decision

Haug Partners LLP on

Referred to as the “names clause”, the Lanham Act prohibits registration of a mark that consists of or comprises a name that identifies a particular living individual without written consent.1 This includes full names,...more

Akerman LLP

Content-Based but Viewpoint-Neutral: Federal Trademark Law “Names Clause” Withstands Constitutional Challenge

Akerman LLP on

There has long been a tension between the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal trademark law. In two relatively recent Supreme Court trademark cases, the First Amendment won, enabling...more

Holland & Knight LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Federal Trademark Statute's "Names Clause"

Holland & Knight LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected a First Amendment challenge to the "names clause" of the Lanham Act on June 13, 2024. See Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704. The names clause prohibits federally registering a trademark...more

Irwin IP LLP

Supreme Court Rules: Elster Can Say "Trump Too Small" But Can't Trademark It!

Irwin IP LLP on

Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. (2024) - In a landmark decision affirming longstanding principles of trademark law, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment,...more

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Trademarking History: Justices Uphold Names Clause, Clash Over Reasoning

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP on

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Vidal v. Elster, a case that pitted trademark law against the First Amendment’s free speech protections. While the Court unanimously upheld the Patent and...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Lanham Act’s Names Clause

McDermott Will & Emery on

In Vidal v. Elster, a unanimous Supreme Court of the United States reversed the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision, holding that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment or...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Lanham Act’s Personal Names Restriction Does Not Violate First Amendment

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

As expected, based on the tenor of the Justices’ questions during oral argument, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against a trademark applicant seeking to register a mark commenting on former President Donald Trump. The...more

Troutman Pepper Locke

Supreme Court Upholds Names Clause in Trademark Law, Emphasizing Historical and Traditional Foundations

Troutman Pepper Locke on

In a landmark decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of, or...more

Genova Burns LLC

Unanimous But Fractured: Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of “Trump Too Small” Trademark, With Little Guidance for the Future

Genova Burns LLC on

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in Vidal v. Ester, 602 U.S. ___ (2024) that the federal prohibition on registering trademarks that identify a living individual without their consent does not violate the First...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

SCOTUS Rules on "Trump Too Small"—Third Recent Ruling on First Amendment Implications for Lanham Act 

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

The June 13, 2024, U.S. Supreme Court decision in Vidal v. Elster made waves in the trademark community. All of the Court’s decisions are significant, and this matter was of particular interest because the decision marked the...more

Greenberg Glusker LLP

Supreme Court Says First Amendment Can’t Save 'Trump Too Small' Trademark Bid

Greenberg Glusker LLP on

On June 13, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. ____ (2024), a case involving a plaintiff’s attempt to register the trademark “Trump too small” (a reference to a key political issue in the 2016...more

Dorsey & Whitney LLP

The Supreme Court Update - June 14, 2024

Dorsey & Whitney LLP on

On Thursday, June 13, the Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions: FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, No. 23-235: This case involves an attempt to rescind the Food and Drug Administration’s...more

Kilpatrick

Vidal v. Elster: The Supreme Court Affirms the Constitutionality of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act

Kilpatrick on

In Vidal v. Elster, the Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits the registration as a trademark or service mark of any “name, portrait, or signature identifying a...more

Morrison & Foerster LLP

From Rubio's Joke to the Supreme Court: The Journey of 'Trump Too Small' in Vidal v. Elster

Morrison & Foerster LLP on

Does the Lanham Act’s restriction on registration of trademarks that include an individual’s name without the consent of such individual violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, even when the mark expresses...more

Miller Nash LLP

Supreme Court Vindicates Restriction on Registering Trademarks Containing Personal Names

Miller Nash LLP on

Citing the common law right to use one’s own name commercially and to prevent others from doing so, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 13, 2024 upheld the constitutionality of a challenged restriction on trademark registration....more

302 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 13
Next »

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up Log in
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide