Just to clear up, he’s still fine to sell them; he just can’t trademark the phrase or stop other people from selling the exact same thing. The whole thing about RBG was that she also had a bunch of merch sold about her but none of it was entitled to trademark protection either while she was alive.
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
55 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19105 readers
2804 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Doesn’t seem to be an SC case. Should be obvious that you can’t have a trademark that includes someone else’s name. How did it end there?
I think it stems from his argument being not about what the law says, but about if the law is constitutional.
Very often things that involve political figures are much more likely to get a very generous interpretation of the first amendment, which is why you get stuff like "elected officials can't always block people on social media even with their personal accounts".
They claimed that preventing him from trademarking the slogan limited his ability to monetize it, and that made it a limitation on his freedom of speech, specifically regarding a politician. Therefore the government should need to provide explicit, compelling reason for the law as applied to politicians. Recently, trademark rules were shot down over first amendment grounds when the supreme Court found that rules saying you can't trademark insulting or vulgar things amounted to the government prohibiting speech in a way it's not allowed to.
With this ruling, they found that the rule in question is viewpoint neutral and therefore isn't the government disfavoring an idea or viewpoint. It's unbiased since it's based on (hopefully) objective facts about if people are alive or not, unlike "is FUCT a vulgar word" or "is it disparaging to name a band The Slants"?
Because the USA is basically a reality TV show right now?
We’ve sailed past that and idiocracy both, at least in idiocracy the president was looking to find the smartest person on earth.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
"This history and tradition is sufficient to conclude that the names clause — a content-based, but viewpoint-neutral, trademark restriction — is compatible with the First Amendment."
The court, however, rejected that argument, noting that living individuals have some limited rights, even in the political arena, to prevent their names from being branded without their permission.
The slogan appears on the front of several T-shirts that Elster sells online for $39.99, with “Trump’s package is too small” also printed on the back.
His application was rejected by the Patent and Trademark office, which concluded that Trump’s written consent would be needed, as required under a 1946 law called the Lanham Act.
The decision maintains the longstanding “living-individual rule” under the Lanham Act, which has governed trademark registration for decades.
Take, for example, the vast array of merchandise marketed on line featuring the image and sayings of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was alive.
The original article contains 508 words, the summary contains 153 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Oh simple then. We're not talking about Donald Trump, we're talking about Fred Trump Senior. He's not living, ergo there's no problem, right?
And I imagine that, by now, Fred Trump is much smaller than he used to be.
That's great! Everyone can print them, then!