Tag Archives: trademark law

Trump Too Small: Supreme Court Upholds Lanham Act’s Restriction on Registering Marks With Living Individual’s Names Without Consent

June 13, 2024Patentcontent-based, free speech, history and tradition, Lanham Act, paid, Section 2(c), source-identifying function, trademark law, viewpoint discriminationDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

In an important trademark law and free speech decision, the Supreme Court held in Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), that the Lanham Act's "names clause" barring registration of a mark that "[c]onsists of or comprises a name . . . identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent", 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c), does not violate the First Amendment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas distinguished this case from the Court's prior decisions in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) (disparaging marks) and Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388 (2019) (scandalous marks), which struck down other Lanham Act restrictions as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. Although content-based, the Court concluded that the names clause is viewpoint-neutral and consistent with the longstanding history and tradition of trademark law.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.

Celebrity Names and Trademark Claims: Insights from the Hobbs Winery Case

May 28, 2024Patentcancellation, celebrity, commercial interest, minority ownership, paid, proximate causation, Trademark, trademark law, zone of interestsDennis Crouch

by Dennis Crouch

The Federal Circuit's recent decision involving Paul Hobbs and Hobbs Winery raises a number of important issues for anyone investing in celebrities or influencers. In the case, early investors in Hobbs Winery were unable to prevent Mr. Hobbs from using his name in other wine ventures, even though a registered mark on PAUL HOBBS was owned by Hobbs Winery. This case was decided on statutory grounds - with a holding that minority owners in a company are not authorized to bring a TM cancellation to protect a mark held by the company. This is an important decision because it prevents the TTAB from being used to settle internal corporate management issues.

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.