Intellectual Property Blog

SCOTUS: You Can't Register Someone Else's Name as a Trademark, Especially Not TRUMP TOO SMALL

The Supreme Court made it clear, regardless of any intended message, the First Amendment does not permit anyone to register someone else’s name as part of a trademark. The Lanham Act, the law which governs federal registration of trademarks, (“the Act”), prohibits registration of trademarks containing the names of living individuals without their consent. In the case of Vidal v. Elster, the Court held that such a restriction is not a violation of the First Amendment. More >

Are You Sure That’s Free? Content from Others in Your Social Media

Big business owners, small business owners, entrepreneurs, and influencers are all looking for boosts to their reputations that drive traffic and revenue their way. Using the parlance of the 2020s, they are looking to generate impressions and conversions through clever online marketing—usually leveraging the power and reach of social media platforms. Frequently this takes the form of sharing or reposting content already on social media, sometimes with a creative business-specific twist. More >

“X” Marks the Spot Where Twitter Once Stood – A Lesson in Trademark Searching and Rebranding

In early August, the nearly half a billion users of Twitter looked at their phones and found something perplexing—the instantly-recognizable blue icon with the white silhouette of a bird had vanished, and in its place a black square with a white “X” had appeared. CEO Elon Musk had decided to rebrand Twitter as “X”—but did he think through all the trademark ramifications of this choice before implementing it? More >

Miami Dance Club Hopes New Golf Tour’s Name Will Be Short-LIVed

Over the past few weeks we have been watching CBS’s celebration of college basketball and, during commercial breaks, hearing those familiar musical notes that signal The Masters golf tournament has arrived. So, what better time than now to celebrate Passover, Easter, world class golf, and, naturally, a good trademark dispute.

More >

Trademark Infringement Case Gets Hotter Than Hell: Lil Nas X, Nike, and “Satan Shoes”

Lil Nas X, Trademark infringement, Satan, Shoes. These may seem like four completely unrelated items chosen entirely for their randomness, and yet all four comprise pop culture’s biggest legal story of 2021 so far. Don’t worry – if you don’t know what I’m talking about, I’ll bring you up to speed, but the short version is that a rapper, a shoe company, and the devil are involved in turning a run-of-the-mill trademark infringement case into headline-making news. The real message is that a company’s brand and trademark are defined by its willingness to aggressively defend them, and the devil isn’t always just in the details. More >

Trademark Registrants, Take Note: COVID-19 Presents Some Challenges for Maintaining Trademark Registrations

As we all know, the varying degrees of lockdown brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic have, for over a year now, interrupted nearly every aspect of personal and professional life. For businesses, mandatory closings and temporary shutdowns can mean a waning customer base and dwindling revenue, but it can also mean something even worse: losing federal rights to a trademark. More >

McDonald's Learns a Trademark Truism: "Use It or Lose It"

A well-known truism of trademark law is that if the owner of a trademark is not making adequate ongoing use of that trademark, the owner of the mark is at risk of jeopardizing the continued right to enforce the trademark to prevent others from using the same or a similar mark in a related line of business.

Apparently the McDonald’s restaurant chain just this week felt the pain of this rule, possibly losing the right to enforce the BIG MAC trademark anywhere throughout the European Union. More >

Supreme Court Holds under First Amendment that Offensive, Disparaging Words Can Be Granted Trademark Protection

Lately there has been a growing tension between certain trademark applicants and a provision of the 1946 Lanham Act, which governs protection of trademarks. This clause gives the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ( the “PTO”) the power to deny registration of any “immoral. . . scandalous” trademark, or one that may “disparage . . . or bring . . . into contempt or disrepute” any “persons, living or dead.” 15 U. S. C. §1052(a). For some time now, this issue has been in the spotlight with a lengthy legal dispute over whether the PTO must cancel the “Washington Redskins” trademarks registered to the National Football League team of that name, because the term “redskins” is disparaging of Native Americans. In the latest ruling, the PTO canceled the Redskins trademark registrations, and that ruling is currently on appeal.  A recent decision by the Supreme Court, however, may change everything. More >