Vidal v. Elster
The Conclusion
**The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the PTO's refusal to register 'Trump too small' as a trademark under the names clause.** The restriction on trademarks using a living person's name without consent is viewpoint-neutral, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment. The Court was unanimous on that result but divided on the reasoning: a six-justice majority rested on a historical tradition of restricting the trademarking of names, while Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson concurred in the judgment only and rejected the history-based analysis.
No circuit court data for this case.
Case Analysis
Overview
Steve Elster tried to register 'Trump too small' as a trademark for T-shirts, a reference to a Marco Rubio line from the 2016 primary, and the Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application under a provision that bars trademarks consisting of a living person's name without their consent. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the restriction in June 2024, holding that the names clause is a viewpoint-neutral, content-based restriction with a long historical tradition in trademark law, and therefore doesn't violate the First Amendment. The decision is narrow, it applies to the names clause specifically, but it's part of an ongoing line of trademark-and-speech cases the Court has been working through since Matal v. Tam (2017).
Conclusion
**The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the PTO's refusal to register 'Trump too small' as a trademark under the names clause.** The restriction on trademarks using a living person's name without consent is viewpoint-neutral and supported by historical tradition, the Court held, and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.
Notes
OT2023. Added via SCOTUS bulk import 2026-05-14
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support