Is TRUMP TOO SMALL for the Supreme Court?

by Dennis Crouch

Vidal v. Elster (2022)

Over the past decade, a number of traditional prudential limits on trademark coverage have been found to be unconstitutional limits on free speech. See, Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017) (disparaging marks) and Iancu v. Brunetti, 139 S. Ct. 2294 (2019) (immoral . . . or scandalous matter).  The most recent showdown involves Steve Elster’s attempt to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL.  The USPTO refused to register the mark based upon the statutory requirement barring registration of “a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent.”  Lanham Act Section 2(c).  On appeal, however, the Federal Circuit ruled that that the limit here is content-based and that the Government had not provided a compelling or even substantial government interest.

[T]he government does not have a privacy or publicity interest in restricting speech critical of government officials or public figures in the trademark context–at least absent actual malice, which is not alleged here.

In a new request-for-extension filing, the US Gov’t has indicated that it is considering petitioning the case to the U.S. Supreme Court as a step too far.  The request does not detail the potential question presented but simply that time is needed.

The Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case. Additional time is needed for further consultation within the Department of Justice and with the Department of Commerce and the USPTO regarding the potential legal and practical ramifications of the court of appeals’ decision.

The petition is now due December 29, 2022.

4 thoughts on “Is TRUMP TOO SMALL for the Supreme Court?

  1. 3

    The mark would definitely not apply to the size of the room of Free Rent that the former President has in the minds of the Liberal Left.

  2. 2

    You complained about Holmes getting away with it. She was charged.I told you the leak was at the Supreme Court, and it was.. So when will they change the rules on the Justices and their crimes? Now we have Elon who whether you know it or not is beholding to China. Dollar to doughnuts he is in for trouble. I also wonder where all you get your information and spout out and complain about one side or the other. Corruption is on both sides. Only difference is the Dems seem to be smarter and really do work for the people instead of only for their re-election.
    I just found out non profits such as Churches gave to leave all situations open. They can’t cover up adoptions when a crime is involved. Finally now I know how Martin was able to settle without the real plaintiff. I can’t wait. Here’s hoping Mccarthy gets the nod. What a joke. To bad the people will suffer for the next two years until the ekection.

  3. 1

    Meanwhile, we are 43 days away from all Hunter Biden, all the time. I hope that you enjoy this subject as much as Rep. Jordan does. I know that many of the regulars here have been waiting for these investigations.

    1. 1.1

      Well, that is certainly an unbiased source there Greg.

      (you couldn’t find a tweet for this? )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You can click here to Subscribe without commenting

Add a picture