Jump to content

Trump Too Small Trademark Dispute


TwiceHorn

Recommended Posts

So, the Supreme Court just granted cert in a trademark registration case where the applicant sought to register "Trump Too Small."

The ordinary rules of the Trademark Office are that a trademark incorporating a name (or image) of a living person (or deceased president) must have the consent of that person on record.  https://tmep.uspto.gov/RDMS/TMEP/current#/current/TMEP-1200d1e4690.html

The idea is not to intrude on that living person's NIL/privacy rights, whatever they may be, usually under state law.  This has been part of the trademark law since 1946.

The Office denied the registration, but the Federal Circuit reversed, holding that the First Amendment prevented barring the registration on such grounds.

This is kind of related to the bar against registering scandalous or obscene matter, which was essentially struck down by the Federal Circuit some years back.

Notwithstanding Trump, it's kind of an interesting issue.  Even if the Office cannot deny registration, it seems like the person "identified" should be able to oppose registration on NIL/right of privacy grounds, but this decision would seem to eliminate that as a possibility.  

  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Notwithstanding Trump, it's kind of an interesting issue.  Even if the Office cannot deny registration, it seems like the person "identified" should be able to oppose registration on NIL/right of privacy grounds, but this decision would seem to eliminate that as a possibility.  

Idk if someone who was a president can claim a right of privacy over a news story that broke while he was in office with every painstaking moment and document being required by law to be recorded and retained

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Idk if someone who was a president can claim a right of privacy over a news story that broke while he was in office with every painstaking moment and document being required by law to be recorded and retained

Obviously, a public figure cannot.

This, however, is more in the nature of commercial speech, although with a parody/commentary aspect to it.

Without more, striking down this provision of the trademark act would make it possible for third parties to register trademarks in college athletes' NIL, for example, without their consent.

Kind of the idea here, with the statute, is that a trademark registration confers certain advantages to the owner, it does not determine whether a valid trademark exists or not.  Trademarks exist and are enforceable under the common law.  NIL trademarks have always been kind of murky and subject to a lot of ins, outs, and what-have-yous.  This is a recognition that they are best left entirely to the courts to sort out, but does permit those with consent to register.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

csb/ obviously you've forgotten more trademark/licensing law than I'll ever know.  But was having a conversation with Marie Osmond's nephew a couple years ago.  And he was telling me about how Nutrisystem/Weight Watchers/whatever was trying to use a likeness of her after her deal with them expired.  But like a silhouette that was obviously  her but not exactly her.  And she used as a legal precedent, the band KISS.  That actual faces and images are protected and can't be used without consent, but an obvious pretend image (cat, starman, et. al.) is a different level of protection because it's not the actual person like the Michael Myers face or Frankenstein Monster.  I'm not getting the nuance right, but this kinda shit is really interesting in this day and age because of how ubiquitous digital imagery can be slung around now, so different from when the baseline case law was put into motion.  

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

csb/ obviously you've forgotten more trademark/licensing law than I'll ever know.  But was having a conversation with Marie Osmond's nephew a couple years ago.  And he was telling me about how Nutrisystem/Weight Watchers/whatever was trying to use a likeness of her after her deal with them expired.  But like a silhouette that was obviously  her but not exactly her.  And she used as a legal precedent, the band KISS.  That actual faces and images are protected and can't be used without consent, but an obvious pretend image (cat, starman, et. al.) is a different level of protection because it's not the actual person like the Michael Myers face or Frankenstein Monster.  I'm not getting the nuance right, but this kinda shit is really interesting in this day and age because of how ubiquitous digital imagery can be slung around now, so different from when the baseline case law was put into motion.  

Yeah, the issue is whether the image, or whatever it is, is recognizable as that of a living person.

There have been some interesting cases over the years relating to surnames.  Like a family surname becomes associated with a business, and then the family with the surname sells the business and is no longer associated.  Can a family member start up a similar business using their own name?  Fletcher's Corn Dogs comes to mind.  Also a case in Fort Worth relating to Haltom's Jewelers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

without having read anything at all i'm mind bottled that this is a free speech issue.  the government not granting him a trademark isn't the government saying he can't perform that speech, it's the government not giving him a monopoly to exclude others from performing that speech. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, elfenix said:

without having read anything at all i'm mind bottled that this is a free speech issue.  the government not granting him a trademark isn't the government saying he can't perform that speech, it's the government not giving him a monopoly to exclude others from performing that speech. 

Yep, and it's not even a very full-blown monopoly.  It's contingent on showing that consumers are confused as to the source of the goods. And, more importantly, the "right to exclude," such as it is, exists at the common law, with our without the registration.

This particular trademark is used on shirts and hats.

The t-shirt included in Steve Elster's application for a trademark of "Trump too small" with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

And I think those trademarks tend to be bogus because no one gives a fuck where they came from, like most Texas gear, they want it for the "trademark" itself.

ETA: With respect to Texas gear, I think the most that "bootleg" or "infringing" goods do is reflect badly on the mark owner, UT.  Like all that Jerrah shit did when they were the licensee.  That isn't how trademarks are supposed to work.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mole said:

I don’t know anything about the law, but it seems like great marketing for the shirts.

That's okay, neither do his lawyers.  

I can't believe there can't be any DT posts about his many indictments, but an open and free discussion about his complete lack of genital size is totally fine.  

What a time to be alive.  And you know it's small because Stormy Daniels literally did a whole series of porn scenes with tiny dicked men as like a fetish niche and she still felt like his was unusually small.  Or so a small-dicked man explained to me ;)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never claimed that.  I just work in the shadows to alleviate regulatory concerns for a few private sector enterprises.  What I learn along the way is the cherry on top.  You cannot do business in the fields I do business in in the State of Texas and not rub against Republicans.  It's not humblebrag.  I don't understand how somebody between 18-88 in the City of Austin can live here without even accidentally running into people in politics, especially Republican politics.  You'd have to have a mental disorder more serious than mine to accomplish that.   

As I tell my students in business school.  There is operational due diligence within a systemic framework.  Then there is my formula.  You develop a network.  You then meet up with those people, you pump them full of booze, you ask them open-ended questions, and then you shut the fuck up.  People are dying to tell you what they know.  Absolutely doubled-over with glee to tell you what they know about their jobs, their bosses, their bosses boss, their organization, etc.  I didn't learn that until I was about in my late 30's but it was a valuable lesson.  I am no Republican.  But holy shit do those guys give up their gossip like young Democrats at a Spin Doctors show.  It's not even really fair at this point.  The sad part though is most of them know that they're doing is just dead to rights wrong.  But they're doing it anyway.  Because it pays.  Because it's easy.  Because the expression on the stupid's faces helps them sleep at night.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 6/6/2023 at 10:01 AM, TwiceHorn said:

Yeah, the issue is whether the image, or whatever it is, is recognizable as that of a living person.

There have been some interesting cases over the years relating to surnames.  Like a family surname becomes associated with a business, and then the family with the surname sells the business and is no longer associated.  Can a family member start up a similar business using their own name?  Fletcher's Corn Dogs comes to mind.  Also a case in Fort Worth relating to Haltom's Jewelers.

Generally, you can trademark something with a name but can't enforce that trademark against someone who just happens to share the same name.  One can always use their own personal name regardless.

But this trademark is attempting this with a specific person in mind, so this immediately goes to NIL and the right to publicity.  Doesn't seem like it would be allowed for the same reason one wouldn't be able to trademark Ryan Reynold's Rum.

Edited by JBJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...