Vidal v. Elster

United States Supreme Court case
Vidal v. Elster
Argued November 1, 2023
Full case nameKatherine K. Vidal, Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office v. Steve Elster
Docket no.22-704
ArgumentOral argument
Case history
PriorIn re Elster, 26 F.4th 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Questions presented
Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson

Vidal v. Elster, (Docket No. 22-704), is a pending United States Supreme Court case dealing with 15 U.S.C. § 1052, a provision of the Lanham Act regarding trademarks using the name of living individuals without their consent. The court will decide whether such a provision violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.[1]

Prior History

Enacted in 1946, the Lanham Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., is the primary federal trademark law of the United States. Among other activities, the Act is intended to prohibit trademark infringement. It states:

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it... [c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow. 15 U.S.C. § 1052

Background

In 2018, Steve Elster applied for federal registration of the trademark "TRUMP TOO SMALL". Elster stated in his application that he intended to use the mark on shirts that he planned to sell. Elster sells the shirts at the website TrumpTooSmall.com.

T-shirt sold at trumptoosmall.com depicting the "Trump Too Small" mark to be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

An examining attorney at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) refused registration under 15 U.S.C. §1052(c), stating that the use of the word "TRUMP" in the mark would likely be construed by the public as a reference to Donald Trump and that, without the then-President's written consent, the registration had to be refused.

Elster appealed to the USPTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board which, at the request of the examining attorney, remanded the matter back to him for further examination, at which point he identified other provisions of the Lanham Act that would forbid such a mark. The Board agreed with the examining attorney that § 1052(c) bars the registration of the mark as it included the name of the President without his written consent.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the judgment of the Appeal Board. They stated that the application of the law to Elster's mark unconstitutionally restricted his speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Court stated the content-based restriction contained within the law would typically trigger either intermediate or strict scrutiny and that, absent an important or compelling state interest in privacy or the public interest, it does not meet the high bar set by these standards of judicial review.

On January 27, 2023, the United States petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case. The Court granted certiorari on June 5, 2023.

References

  1. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 5, 2023). "Supreme Court to Decide 'Trump Too Small' Trademark Dispute". The New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2023.

External links

  • Text of Vidal v. Elster, ___ U.S. ___ (2024) is available from: Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio) 
  • v
  • t
  • e
Public displays
and ceremonies
Statutory religious
exemptions
Public funding
Religion in
public schools
Private religious speech
Internal church affairs
Taxpayer standing
Blue laws
Other
Exclusion of religion
from public benefits
Ministerial exception
Statutory religious exemptions
RFRA
RLUIPA
Unprotected
speech
Incitement
and sedition
Libel and
false speech
Fighting words and
the heckler's veto
True threats
Obscenity
Speech integral
to criminal conduct
Strict scrutiny
Vagueness
Symbolic speech
versus conduct
Content-based
restrictions
Content-neutral
restrictions
In the
public forum
Designated
public forum
Nonpublic
forum
Compelled speech
Compelled subsidy
of others' speech
Compelled representation
Government grants
and subsidies
Government
as speaker
Loyalty oaths
School speech
Public employees
Hatch Act and
similar laws
Licensing and
restriction of speech
Commercial speech
Campaign finance
and political speech
Anonymous speech
State action
Official retaliation
Boycotts
Prisons
Prior restraints
and censorship
Privacy
Taxation and
privileges
Defamation
Broadcast media
Copyrighted materials
Incorporation
Protection from prosecution
and state restrictions
Organizations
Future Conduct
Solicitation
Membership restriction
Primaries and elections