Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Vidal v. Elster

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Vidal v. Elster
Term: 2023
Important Dates
Argued: November 1, 2023
Decided June 13, 2024
Outcome
Reversed
Vote
9-0
Majority
Clarence Thomas • Chief Justice John Roberts • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Vidal v. Elster is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 13, 2024, during the court's October 2023-2024 term. The case was argued before the Court on November 1, 2023.

In a unanimous opinion, the Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling, holding that, "The Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment."[1] SCOTUSblog explained the court's unanimous vote breakdown as follows: "Justice Clarence Thomas announced the judgment of the court and delivered the opinion of the court, except as to Part III. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined that opinion in full; Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh joined all but Part III; and Justice Barrett joined Parts I, II-A, and II-B. Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Roberts joined. Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Justice Kagan joined, in which Justice Sotomayor joined as to Part I, II, and III-B, and in which Justice Jackson joined as to Parts I and II. Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Kagan and Jackson joined."[2] Click here for more information about the ruling.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned trademark registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) and the First Amendment. Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented: "Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure."[3]
  • The outcome: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's ruling in a unanimous decision.


    • The case came on a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:[4]

    • June 13, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's ruling in a unanimous decision.
    • November 1, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • June 5, 2023: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
    • January 27, 2023: Katherine K. Vidal appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • Feb 24, 2022: The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.

    Background

    In 2018, Steve Elster applied for the federal registration of the phrase TRUMP TOO SMALL to use the mark on shirts.[5] The United States Patent and Trademark Office examiner rejected Elster’s application under section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which prevents the registration of a trademark that includes the name, portrait, or signature identifying a living individual without their written consent. Elster’s phrase could not be registered because it uses President Donald Trump’s name.[5] The examiner also rejected the application under section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which prevents the registration of trademarks that “falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead.”[6]

    Elster appealed the examiner’s decision to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, arguing that it violated his First Amendment rights.[6] The board affirmed the examiner’s decision based on section 2(c), holding that the policy serves two compelling government interests: protecting the named individual’s rights, and protecting consumers against deception. Elster appealed the board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The court reversed the board’s decision, holding that it is unconstitutional.[5]


    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[7]

    Questions presented:
    “ Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) violates the Free

    Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure. [8]

    		”

    Oral argument

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[9]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[10]

    Outcome

    In a unanimous opinion, the Court reversed the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruling, holding that, "The Lanham Act’s names clause does not violate the First Amendment."[1] SCOTUSblog explained the court's unanimous vote breakdown as follows: "Justice Clarence Thomas announced the judgment of the court and delivered the opinion of the court, except as to Part III. Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch joined that opinion in full; Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined all but Part III; and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined Parts I, II-A, and II-B. Kavanaugh filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Roberts joined. Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part, in which Justice Elena Kagan joined, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined as to Part I, II, and III-B, and in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined as to Parts I and II. Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Kagan and Jackson joined."[2]

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote:[1]

    “ Steve Elster sought to register the trademark “Trump too small.” But, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused to register the mark because the Lanham Act prohibits registration of a trademark that “[c]onsists of or comprises a name . . . identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent.” 60 Stat. 428, 15 U. S. C. §1052(c). Elster contends that this prohibition violates his First Amendment right to free speech. We hold that it does not.


    ... Our decision today is narrow. We do not set forth a comprehensive framework for judging whether all content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional. Nor do we suggest that an equivalent history and tradition is required to uphold every content-based trademark restriction. We hold only that history and tradition establish that the particular restriction before us, the names clause in §1052(c), does not violate the First Amendment. Although an occasion may arise when history and tradition cannot alone answer whether a trademark restriction violates the First Amendment, that occasion is not today. In a future case, we can address the “distinct question” whether “a viewpoint-neutral, content-based trade-mark restriction” is constitutional without “such a historical pedigree.” Post, at 1 (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Concurring opinions

    Justice Kavanaugh

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh filed a partial concurrence, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts:[1]

    “ I join all but Part III of the Court’s opinion. I agree with the Court that the names clause is constitutional, particularly in light of the long history of restricting the use of another’s name in a trademark. In my view, a viewpoint-neutral, content-based trademark restriction might well be constitutional even absent such a historical pedigree. We can address that distinct question as appropriate in a future case. Cf., e.g., post, at 7–9 (BARRETT, J., concurring in part).[8] ”
    —Justice Brett Kavanaugh

    Justice Barrett

    Justice Amy Coney Barrett filed a partial concurrence, joined by Justice Elena Kagan in full, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor as to Part I, II, and III-B, and joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson as to Parts I and II:[1]

    “ While I agree with the Court that the names clause does not violate the First Amendment, I disagree with some of its reasoning. The Court claims that “history and tradition” settle the constitutionality of the names clause, rendering it unnecessary to adopt a standard for gauging whether a content-based trademark registration restriction abridges the right to free speech. That is wrong twice over. First, the Court’s evidence, consisting of loosely related cases from the late-19th and early-20th centuries, does not establish a historical analogue for the names clause. Second, the Court never explains why hunting for historical forebears on a restriction-by-restriction basis is the right way to analyze the constitutional question. I would adopt a standard,grounded in both trademark law and First Amendment precedent, that reflects the relationship between content-based trademark registration restrictions and free speech.In my view, such restrictions, whether new or old, are permissible so long as they are reasonable in light of the trademark system’s purpose of facilitating source identification.


    ... Trademark protection cannot exist without content discrimination. So long as content-based registration restrictions reasonably relate to the purposes of the trademark system, they are constitutional. The names clause clears this bar. I respectfully concur in part.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Amy Coney Barrett

    Justice Sotomayor

    Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson:[1]

    “ This case involves a free-speech challenge to a viewpoint-neutral, content-based condition on trademark registration. In deciding how to evaluate this kind of challenge, the Court faces two options: Either look only to the history and tradition of the condition, or look to trademark law and settled First Amendment precedent. The first option, which asks whether the history of a particular trademark registration bar plays well with the First Amendment, leads this Court into uncharted territory that neither party requests.The other guides it through well-trodden terrain. I would follow the well-trodden path.


    In assessing the constitutionality of the names clause and other trademark registration provisions, I would rely on this Court’s tried-and-tested First Amendment precedent. This Court has held in a variety of contexts that withholding benefits for content-based, viewpoint-neutral reasons does not violate the Free Speech Clause when the applied criteria are reasonable and the scheme is necessarily con-tent based. That is the situation here. Content discrimination is an inescapable feature of the trademark system, and federal trademark registration only confers additional benefits on trademark holders. The denial of trademark registration is therefore consistent with the First Amendment if it turns on “reasonable, viewpoint-neutral content regulations.” Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U. S. 388, 424 (2019) (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Because the names clause satisfies that test, I would uphold the constitutionality of the provision on that ground alone.[8]

    		”
    —Justice Sonia Sotomayor

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    October term 2023-2024

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2023-2024

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 2, 2023. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions in mid-June.[11]


    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 U.S. Supreme Court, Vidal v. Elster, decided June 13, 2024
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 SCOTUSblog, "Vidal v. Elster," accessed June 13, 2024
    3. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "22-704 VIDAL V. ELSTER," "QUESTION PRESENTED" accessed June 5, 2023
    4. ↑ SCOTUSblog, accessed June 8, 2023
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 Casetext’', "In re Elster," accessed December 18, 2023
    6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 U.S. Supreme Court’', "Katherine K. Vidal, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Petitioner V. Steve Elster, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit," accessed December 18, 2023
    7. ↑ [1]
    8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued November 1, 2023
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued November 1, 2023
    11. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Vidal_v._Elster&oldid=9585203"