A dissenting subgroup of the Libertarian Party of Michigan was barred from "from identifying as the Libertarian Party of Michigan in the provision of services."
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted during oral arguments, the right to sell a shirt is different from the right to be the only one who can sell that shirt.
The underlying methodological debate might also bear on free speech disputes more broadly.
"How small do you have to be for Nike not to care?"
Even though only one very specific version of the character is free to use, it still represents a positive step for creative expression.
Nike should welcome the reinvention of their popular shoes.
"Spoiler: the robot wins for lack of Article III standing."
Jack Daniel's prevails against dog toy maker.
The question: Does the First Amendment allow content-based but viewpoint-neutral restrictions on which trademarks may be registered—here, a restriction on marks that "[c]onsist[] of or comprise[] a name ... identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent"?
The case could have long-term implications for how broadly fair use can be applied.
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board determined this week that an applicant cannot have the exclusive rights to everybody's favorite curse word.
And, even more exciting, there’s personal jurisdiction thrown in.
The account posted items such as (in mid-2020), "ASU: No More Social Distancing. No More Masks. It Is Time to Party!"
"They should be paying us for burnishment—not suing us for tarnishment."
The latest from Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen), pushing back against threats of trademark litigation over parody.
I was just reminded of this short article of mine (published at 8 Tex. Rev. L. & Pol. 259 (2003)), and I thought I’d repost it here.
Court dismisses Ice Cube's trademark lawsuit over Robinhood's use of his image and of a version of his "Check you self before you wreck yo self" line.
ASU loses, even though the defendant “stopped participating in this action after his answer was stricken” “for litigation misconduct”: “[A]a reasonably prudent consumer would not be deceived or confused into believing that ASU was the ‘source or origin’ of the posts and messages emanating from the ‘asu_covid.parties.’”
The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejects the mark “Nigga” for clothing, because it’s so commonly used by others that it doesn’t serve to identify the applicant’s products (logic that equally applies to "Team Jesus," "Texas Love," and "God Bless the USA").
An interesting illustration of the "non-trademark use" doctrine.
Why are so many people in Washington DC walking around wearing Walgreens gear all of a sudden?
Can the "the" - not to be confused with the band "The The" - be protected by trademark?
What's in a name? Money, apparently.
A 6-3 ruling says that the First Amendment protects brand names that are considered “immoral” or “scandalous.”
The Supreme Court rules that the bar on "immoral or scandalous" marks is viewpoint-based, but Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Breyer, Alito, and Sotomayor say that an exclusion of "vulgar or profane" marks would be viewpoint-neutral though content-based. (The other five Justices express no opinion on a hypothetical "vulgar or profane" mark ban.)
The owner of a clothing line asks the Supreme Court to overturn the ban on "scandalous" trademarks because it violates the First Amendment.
The Slants speak with Reason a year after winning the right to use their own name.
Meet Eric Lundgren, who got 15 months in prison for selling pirated Microsoft software that the tech giant gives away for free.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
