Vidal v. Elster

Steve Elster applied to register the trademark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for use on shirts, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office refused registration under the Lanham Act’s “names clause,” which prohibits registering a mark that identifies a living individual without their written consent. Elster argued this violated his First Amendment free speech rights. The Federal Circuit agreed, striking down the clause as unconstitutional as applied. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. In a unanimous decision delivered by Justice Clarence Thomas on June 13, 2024, the Court reversed, holding that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court reasoned the clause is a permissible, viewpoint-neutral condition on trademark registration rooted in a longstanding tradition of protecting individuals’ rights in their own names.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Federal Circuit, holding that the names clause is constitutional and does not violate the First Amendment. The restriction is viewpoint-neutral and consistent with historical trademark traditions protecting personal name rights.

Whether the Lanham Act’s “names clause” barring registration of a mark containing a living person’s name without consent violates the First Amendment’s free speech guarantee when applied to marks expressing political criticism.

The decision affirmed the government’s authority to condition trademark registration on content-based but viewpoint-neutral criteria. It clarified the boundaries of First Amendment protection in commercial speech contexts, preserved the integrity of the trademark registration system, and reinforced protections for individuals’ control over commercial use of their names, while leaving open channels for political expression outside the registration system.