US Supreme Court takes up case dealing with the use of public figures’ names and likenesses in trademarks; Jurist.org, June 5, 2023

 Rebekah Yeager-Malkin | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US, Jurist.org; US Supreme Court takes up case dealing with the use of public figures’ names and likenesses in trademarks

"The US Supreme Court announced Monday it will take up the trademark case Vidal v. Elster, to determine whether the application of Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act to political figures violates the First Amendment. 

The case surrounds the trademark application by Steve Elster for the phrase “Trump Too Small,” which Elster attempted to trademark for use on t-shirts. Elster’s application was denied by the US Patents and Trademarks Office and the denial was upheld by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board for violating Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which bars a trademark that “Consists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent…”"

Stay Away; No Trademark For Social Distancing And Other Informational Terms; JDSupra, March 23, 2020

Weintraub Tobin and Scott Hervey, JD Supra; Stay Away; No Trademark For Social Distancing And Other Informational Terms

"The trademark examiner assigned to an application to register SOCIAL DISTANCING will likely refuse registration because it fails to function as a trademark because it merely conveys an informational message. Where a term is merely informational, the context of its use in the marketplace would cause consumers to perceive the term as merely conveying an informational message, and not a means to identify and distinguish goods/services from those of others...

Some examples of proposed marks that have been denied registration on the grounds of being merely information or a widely used message are: ITS TACO TUESDAY for clothing, I LOVE YOU for jewelry, BLACK LIVES MATTER for a wide variety of goods and services, THINK GREEN for products advertised to be recyclable and to promote energy conservation, and DRIVE SAFELY for automobiles.

The trademark examiner would contend that the proposed mark, SOCIAL DISTANCING, merely conveys an expression of support for the ideas embodied in the message, that maintaining a certain distance between individuals is a measure people can take to slow the rapid spread of the coronavirus, as opposed to rather than an indicator of a single source of goods or services. In support of the refusal to register, the trademark examiner would introduce evidence from the CDC and other sources discussing the benefits of social distancing in slowing down the spread of coronavirus."

Trying to Trademark a Meme? OK Boomer; The New York Times, November 19, 2019

Derrick Bryson Taylor, The New York Times; Trying to Trademark a Meme? OK Boomer

"In light of the phrase’s popularity, it’s not likely that any of the applications will be approved, said Josh Gerben, a trademark lawyer and founder of Gerben Law Firm, who noticed the filing by Fox Media on Monday.

“I think they are all very likely to meet the same fate, which is the U.S.P.T.O. will issue what is called a widely used message refusal,” Mr. Gerben said in an interview on Tuesday, adding that the definition of a trademark “has to identify a single company or individual as a source of a product or service.”

Once something like a meme goes viral and is widely used by people, it cannot legally function as a trademark, he said."

Seeking a Vulgar Trademark? Better Wait for Supreme Court Review; Bloomberg News, August 1, 2018

Susan Decker, Bloomberg News; Seeking a Vulgar Trademark? Better Wait for Supreme Court Review

"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has placed suspensions on trademark applications that contain “scandalous or vulgar” words while it considers whether to ask the Supreme Court to look at the issue...

There’s always the chance that the trademark office will put other roadblocks in front of applications even if the “scandalous” standard goes away, like saying that the trademark doesn’t really identify the source of a good or service, or that it’s only an ornamental use.

And there’s no indication the ruling has led to a rise in applications for what many would consider hate speech, Baird said. One reason -- you have to pay the application fees and show you actually are using the trademark."