News & Analysis as of

First Amendment › Supreme Court of the United States › Lanham Act

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 -
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...

Gibney Anthony & Flaherty, LLP on

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

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

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

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

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

Fox Rothschild LLP

Supreme Court Rejects TRUMP TOO SMALL Trademark

Fox Rothschild LLP on

“TRUMP TOO SMALL”- This is the trademark that Steve Elster has been trying to get registered for the past six years since filing his trademark application all the way back in January 2018, during the Trump presidency. Since...more

ArentFox Schiff

The Last Dance? The Future of the “Rogers Test” After the Jack Daniel’s Decision

ArentFox Schiff on

After enjoying several decades of acceptance across many circuit courts, the future of the so-called “Rogers test” is uncertain. Established in the landmark Second Circuit case Rogers v. Grimaldi, Rogers is a two-step test...more

Proskauer - Minding Your Business

Ninth Circuit Provides Further Guidance on Trademark Lawsuits Involving “Expressive Works”

Proskauer - Minding Your Business on

We previously discussed the United States Supreme Court’s June 2023 Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products, LLC decision, which altered the way the “Rogers test,” a doctrine designed to protect First Amendment...more

Womble Bond Dickinson

The IP of Everything Podcast - Episode 22 - The IP of Dog Toys

Womble Bond Dickinson on

Explore the legal intricacies of dog toy trademarks such as Chewy Vuitton and Bad Spaniels. Uncover key cases, including a pivotal Supreme Court showdown, with implications for both canines and intellectual property at large....more

225 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 9
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