The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s 2022 decision in Vidal v. Elster, which held the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to reject the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL was unconstitutional. The High Court today held that the Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment. While all of the justices agreed that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment, they differed on the proper analysis to reach that conclusion.
Recent Posts
- Other Barks & Bites for Friday, August 29: CAFC Affirms Prosecution Laches Ruling Against Hyatt; Trump Admin Cancels USPTO CBA; Second Circuit Affirms Lack of Standing in Ripple Trademark Case
- CAFC Dodges Key Issues in Reversing District Court Finding for Google on Prosecution Laches
- CAFC Corrects PTAB’s Inventorship Analysis in First Appeal of AIA Derivation Proceeding
- Brunetti’s Back: Split CAFC Rejects Most of Scandalous Trademark Applicant’s Arguments But Remands for Second Chance at TTAB
- CAFC is Unconvinced by Claim Construction Challenges to ITC’s Robotics Patent Infringement Finding