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.
"No ordinary word."
And, even more exciting, there’s personal jurisdiction thrown in.
Ninth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Arizona State's Trademark Lawsuit Over ASU_Covid.Parties Instagram Account
The account posted items such as (in mid-2020), "ASU: No More Social Distancing. No More Masks. It Is Time to Party!"
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.
Trademark Confusion Lawsuit Over "ASU: No More Social Distancing. No More Masks. It Is Time to Party!" Posts
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.’”
Some Potentially Racially Offensive Terms Can't Be Trademarked—Because They're Too Common, Not Because They're Racially Offensive
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.
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.”
Congress May Not Bar Registration of "Immoral or Scandalous" Trademarks—But "Vulgar or Profane" Marks, Maybe
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.
So concludes the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board, in rejecting rapper Dr. Dre's trademark claim against OB/GYN -- and OB/GYN-related writer and lecturer -- Draion M. Burch, who calls himself Dr. Drai.
So a Federal Circuit panel held today, answering a question that the Supreme Court's Slants case left open.
Court says Iowa State University discriminated against student marijuana-policy group based on "political pushback."
The government struggles to justify the rule that stopped The Slants from registering the name of their band.
May the govt force be with you.
Release of No Man's Sky was delayed nearly two months.