Vidal v. Elster
In brief
The government may deny trademark registration for a living person's name used without consent, including in political criticism.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 13, 2024 · Opinion by Justice Thomas
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court considered whether a federal trademark law prohibiting the registration of a living person's name without their consent violates the First Amendment when the trademark involves political criticism.
- Who it affects
- The Patent and Trademark Office may continue refusing to register trademarks that use a living person's name without permission. For example, a person seeking to register a political message using an official's name can be denied registration under this rule.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court unanimously ruled that the "names clause" of the Lanham Act is constitutional and does not infringe on free speech rights.
The decision addresses how First Amendment protections apply to conditions for receiving federal trademark registration.
Question presented
Does the refusal to register a trademark under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment?
What the Court decided
Holding
The Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment. 26 F. 4th 1328, reversed.
- Result
- Reversed
The vote
- Joined the judgment
- Concurred in a separate opinion
- Wrote an opinion
From the opinions
“The Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment.”
What's next
The decision is final, and the Patent and Trademark Office can continue applying the names clause. Lower courts must follow the Court's conclusion that the clause does not violate the First Amendment.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Impact Analysis
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Opinion Summary
Show 5 moreShow fewer
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Opinion added: Vidal
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Petition
Brief added: Questions Presented
More questions
- What did the Supreme Court rule in Vidal v. Elster?
- The Court ruled that the Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment. It reversed the Federal Circuit.
- Who won Vidal v. Elster?
- The Patent and Trademark Office prevailed. The Court upheld its authority to deny registration of a living person's name without consent.
- What does Vidal v. Elster mean for political trademark applicants?
- Political criticism does not override the names clause. Applicants can be refused registration when their mark uses a living person's name without consent.
- Is the Lanham Act names clause still the law after Vidal v. Elster?
- Yes. The Court unanimously concluded that the names clause is constitutional, so the Patent and Trademark Office may continue enforcing it.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.