Plain-English summary
Court rules Lanham Act ban on registering trademarks that use a living person's name without consent does not violate 1A
The Supreme Court held that Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which bars federal trademark registration for marks that consist of or comprise the name of a living person without that person's written consent, does not violate the First Amendment. The Court reversed the Federal Circuit and upheld the USPTO's authority to refuse such registrations.
Why this matters
Federal trademark registration brings legal benefits: nationwide notice of ownership, presumptions of validity and exclusive rights, and stronger tools to stop infringers. By upholding Section 2(c), the Court preserves the USPTO's ability to deny those registration benefits when a mark uses a living person's name without permission. That affects branding strategies and disputes involving celebrities, private individuals, and businesses trading on someone else's name.
Who may feel it
- Businesses and entrepreneurs seeking federal trademark registration using a living person's name
- Celebrities, public figures, and private individuals whose names might be used as trademarks
- Trademark attorneys and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- Consumers who rely on trademark registration as a signal of source or endorsement
Key questions
- Does Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act violate the First Amendment by refusing trademark registration for marks that consist of a living person's name without that person's written consent?