News & Analysis as of

United States Patent and Trademark Office › Supreme Court of the United States › Constitutional Challenges

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.... more +
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is an agency of the United States Department of Commerce that serves a fundamental role in the U.S. intellectual property system by issuing patents and registering trademarks.    less -
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

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

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

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

Polsinelli

Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Register Trademark Containing the Name of Living Individual – Donald Trump

Polsinelli on

In a recent unanimous decision in the case Vidal v. Elster (602 U.S. ___ (2024)), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the refusal to register a federal trademark for the phrase “Trump Too Small” based on the fact that the Lanham...more

Epstein Becker & Green

FDA Wins Mifepristone Case, NLRB Denied Lower Injunctive Relief Standards, and “Trump Too Small” Denied Trademark - SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

Of the Supreme Court opinions issued today, the one that will draw the greatest public attention is Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, unanimously holding that the pro-life organizational...more

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.

Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of the Trademark Act’s “Names Clause” in Affirming Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL

Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. on

Yesterday, in Vidal v. Elster, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 2(c) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052(c)), which prohibits registration of a mark that “[c]onsists of or...more

Weintraub Tobin

(Podcast) The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional

Weintraub Tobin on

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Vidal v. Elster to determine whether the USPTO’s refusal to register the trademark “Trump Too Small” violates the applicant’s First Amendment rights. Scott Hervey...more

Weintraub Tobin

The Briefing: SCOTUS to Determine if USPTO Refusal to Register TRUMP TOO SMALL is Unconstitutional

Weintraub Tobin on

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in the case of Vidal v. Elster to determine whether the USPTO’s refusal to register the trademark “Trump Too Small” violates the applicant’s First Amendment rights. Scott Hervey...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

Lanham Act May “Trump” First Amendment (For Once)

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

In what appears to be a shift from prior decisions striking down portions of the federal Lanham Act on First Amendment grounds, the U.S. Supreme Court seems likely to rule against a trademark applicant seeking to register a...more

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP

Is Trademark Law ‘Too Small' for the First Amendment? - Katten Kattwalk | Issue 25

Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP on

During the 2016 presidential debate, Senator Marco Rubio taunted Donald Trump for having “small hands.” Now, more than seven years later, progressive activist Steve Elster is continuing his fight to trademark the phrase...more

Seyfarth Shaw LLP

SCOTUS To Examine Whether First Amendment “Trumps” Lanham Act

Seyfarth Shaw LLP on

The U.S. Supreme Court continues to show interest in trademark issues with its recent grant of certiorari in another case pitting the Lanham Act against the First Amendment....more

Epstein Becker & Green

How Big a Deal Is “Trump Too Small”? – SCOTUS Today

Epstein Becker & Green on

The question of whether a would-be trademark, “TRUMP TOO SMALL,” warrants a First Amendment exception to the Lanham Act’s prohibition on registering a living person’s name as a trademark without that person’s permission has...more

Jones Day

Federal Circuit Approves Interim-Director Director Reviews

Jones Day on

The Federal Circuit’s decision on May 27, 2022 in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., set forth that Patent Commissioner, Drew Hirshfeld, was within the bounds of the U.S. Supreme Court’s United States v. Arthrex...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

Federal Circuit Appeals from the PTAB and ITC: Summaries of Key 2021 Decisions

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

Supreme Court: PTAB Judges Unconstitutionally Appointed; Court Gives Director Supervisory Authority

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP on

In United States v. Arthrex, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) administrative patent judges (APJs) are unconstitutionally appointed. However, the Court resolved the problem by making PTAB...more

WilmerHale

10 Open Appellate Issues Following High Court Arthrex Ruling

WilmerHale on

On June 21, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex Inc. Two questions were before the court. First, are administrative patent judges principal officers who must be appointed by the president...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

Supreme Court Upholds PTAB and Clarifies USPTO Director Power Under 35 U.S.C. § 6(c)

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

In Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, the Supreme Court determined: (i) whether the authority of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to issue decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch is consistent with the Appointments Clause of...more

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C.

What You Should Know About the Supreme Court's Decision in Arthrex

Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. on

The US Supreme Court held in United States v. Arthrex that administrative patent judges’ ability to render final decisions on patentability on behalf of the Executive Branch is “incompatible with their status as inferior...more

Jones Day

Supreme Court Excuses Administrative Exhaustion for Some Structural Constitutional Claims

Jones Day on

In Carr v. Saul, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that a party can raise a challenge under the Constitution’s Appointments Clause to an Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) decision, even if the party did not raise the...more

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP

U.S. v. Arthrex: Is Historical Practice of the USPTO Relevant?

McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP on

As discussed here, the Justices asked many questions in the oral argument in Arthrex this week on both questions:  (1) whether there was an Appointments Clause defect and (2) if so, whether the Federal Circuit properly cured...more

Foley & Lardner LLP

Justices To Consider Appointments Clause Challenge To Administrative Patent Judges

Foley & Lardner LLP on

The justices continue their light load for the February argument session next week. First up is Monday’s United States v. Arthrex, Inc., consolidated with both Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Arthrex, Inc. and Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith...more

168 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 7
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