News & Analysis as of

Lanham Act First Amendment

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

Farella Braun + Martel LLP

L'eggo My Rights: Parody or Trademark Violation?

In another in a long line of trademark imitation cases, Kellogg North America Co. LLC has filed a trademark and trade dress infringement lawsuit against a small Ohio-based food truck named L’eggo My Eggroll, arguing that the...more

Gibney Anthony & Flaherty, LLP

Jack Daniel’s Harmed, but Not Infringed, by Chewy Dog Toy: Key Trademark Takeaways from the Latest VIP Products and Jack Daniel’s...

JACK DANIEL'S HARMED, BUT NOT INFRINGED, BY CHEWY DOG TOY- The latest ruling in ‘Bad Spaniels’ finds the whiskey brand’s marks were diluted-but not infringed by a dog toy parody, explain Brian Brokate and Jacqueline...more

Sunstein LLP

Bad Spaniels on Remand: Parody Provides an Escape from Infringement But Not From Dilution

Sunstein LLP on

The dispute at issue in Jack Daniel’s arises from a conflict between the well-known whiskey company and a dog toy company (VIP) regarding VIP’s unauthorized use of Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress in connection with a...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

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

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

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Digital Replicas and the First Amendment: The Latest in Artificial Intelligence Legislation

Image-generating technology is accelerating quickly, making it much more likely that you will be seeing "digital replicas" (sometimes referred to as "deepfakes") of celebrities and non-celebrities alike across film,...more

McDermott Will & Emery

Rebel Libertarians Aren’t at Liberty to Violate Lanham Act

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

Jenner & Block

Client Alert: U.S. Copyright Office Issues “Digital Replica” Report Finding Urgent Need for New Federal Legislation

Jenner & Block on

Last year, the U.S. Copyright Office commenced a far-reaching policy study concerning copyright and related issues raised by the widespread availability and use of artificial intelligence (AI). This week, the Office released...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...

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

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

Carlton Fields

Top First Amendment Cases of the 2023-2024 Supreme Court Term

Carlton Fields on

The U.S. Supreme Court stepped back from the brink in a term that could have reshaped First Amendment law for the internet age. ...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

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 

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

350 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 14

"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:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide