‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark Case Morphs Into Free Speech Debate; Bloomberg Law, June 18, 2024

Laura Heymann , Bloomberg Law; ‘Trump Too Small’ Trademark Case Morphs Into Free Speech Debate

"The US Supreme Court’s June 13 decision in the “Trump Too Small” trademark case revealed a potential rift among the justices on First Amendment jurisprudence but did little to advance intellectual property law...

Trademark law, the Supreme Court has said in prior cases, is primarily about two goals: preventing confusion among consumers by ensuring accurate source identification and preserving trademark owners’ reputation and goodwill. For these justices, the names clause passed muster because prohibiting the registration of personal names without consent was self-evidently reasonable in light of these purposes; no further analysis was required."

May ‘Bad Spaniels’ Mock Jack Daniel’s? The Supreme Court Will Decide.; The New York Times, December 5, 2022

  Adam Liptak, The New York Times; May ‘Bad Spaniels’ Mock Jack Daniel’s? The Supreme Court Will Decide.

"The justices agreed last month to decide the fate of the Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker dog toy, which looks a lot like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s but with, as an appeals court judge put it, “lighthearted, dog-related alterations.”

The jokes are scatological. The words “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” on the bottle are replaced on the toy by “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee carpet.” Where Jack Daniel’s says its product is 40 percent alcohol by volume, Bad Spaniels’s is said to be “43 percent poo.”

A tag attached to the toy says it is “not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”

Trademark cases generally turn on whether the public is likely to be confused about a product’s source. In the Bad Spaniels case, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said the First Amendment requires a more demanding test when the challenged product is expressing an idea or point of view."

A Trademark Attorney Explains Why the Former Lady Antebellum Is Suing the Black Singer Lady A; Slate, July 10, 2020

Rachelle Hampton, Slate; A Trademark Attorney Explains Why the Former Lady Antebellum Is Suing the Black Singer Lady A

"Trademark rights are what the Lady A dispute centers on. As we discussed today, trademark rights arise from use of any word, phrase, logo, symbol, etc., as a source indicator in connection with the sale of specific goods or services, like Greyhound for bus services or Dasani for bottled water or Tony the Tiger for cereal or a [Nike] swoosh for athletic apparel."

Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory; The Washington Post, August 1, 2018

Antonia Farzan, The Washington Post; Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory

"In June 2015, Gordon filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to the greeting card company, saying that the cards were expressive works protected by the First Amendment. Gordon appealed.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, allowing his lawsuit to continue.

In an opinion published Monday, the three-judge panel said that Gordon’s lawsuit against Drape Creative, Inc. and Papyrus-Recycled Greetings, Inc. presents a question that should be tried before a jury: Did the greeting cards add any artistic value that would be protected by the First Amendment, or did they simply appropriate the goodwill associated with Gordon’s trademark?"

Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High; New York Times, June 19, 2017

Ken Belson, New York Times; Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High

"After years of mounting disapproval involving one of the N.F.L.’s most established and lucrative brands, the Redskins cheered the ruling, which the team most likely will use to seek the restoration of trademark protections the government took away in 2014 on the grounds the nickname was offensive.

“I am THRILLED!” the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, said in a statement. “Hail to the Redskins.”...

Still, while those who have resisted name changes might see a symbolic lift from the court, they will have to weigh whether keeping their names hurts their image or even their bottom line.

“What the Supreme Court has said is you don’t have to change your name if you don’t want to, because you can protect it with a federally protected trademark,” said Josh Schiller, a lawyer at Boies Schiller Flexner in New York who specializes in sports and media law. “But culturally, it is important to consider whether the name still offends people, and whether it will build good will around the mark.”"

Paramount to Drop Lawsuit Against ‘Star Trek’ Fan Film; Comic Book Resources, 5/21/16

Kevin Melrose, Comic Book Resources; Paramount to Drop Lawsuit Against ‘Star Trek’ Fan Film:

"Paramount Pictures plans to withdraw its controversial lawsuit against a crowdfunded “Star Trek” fan film, a move that will undoubtedly earn the studio goodwill as it prepares to release “Star Trek Beyond” amid the franchise’s 50th-anniversary celebration.

The announcement was made Friday by J.J. Abrams during a fan event on the Paramount lot, where the filmmaker said the litigation is “going away” within the next few weeks."

The Tarnished Trump Brand; New York Times, 12/11/15

Editorial Board, New York Times; The Tarnished Trump Brand:

"It takes a lot of work to make brands successful, and they can be undone quickly by controversy and scandal. Thanks to Mr. Trump himself, his name increasingly stands for bigotry and racism. His licensees should ask themselves if they want to be linked to a brand that carries those connotations."