The US Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a political activist’s bid to trademark the phrase “Trump Too Small” — an obvious criticism of former President Donald Trump — ruling that the federal trademark office did not infringe on the First Amendment by rejecting his plea.
The court ruled unanimously in favour of the US Patent and Trademark Office over its decision to reject the application filed by the California-based activist, Steve Elster, who sought exclusive use of the phrase on T-shirts and potentially other merchandise.
The case revolved around a provision in a 1946 federal trademark law prohibiting the registration of any trademark that uses a living individual’s name without their written consent. The key issue was whether the free speech protections for criticising public figures outweigh the US Patent and Trademark Office’s concerns regarding Trump’s rights, as determined by a lower court of the country.
The Supreme Court justices unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the “names clause” provision but had differing reasons for their decision.
“Restrictions on trademarking names have a long history,” news agency Reuters quoted a conservative Justice Clarence Thomas as writing on behalf of a majority of the justices.
“Such restrictions have historically been grounded in the notion that a person has ownership over his own name, and that he may not be excluded from using that name by another’s trademark,” Justice Clarence Thomas said.
In 2018, Elster applied for the trademark for shirts featuring an illustration of a mocking hand gesture. This design was inspired by a memorable exchange between Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio during a 2016 Republican presidential debate. Trump had derisively called Rubio “Little Marco”, to which Rubio responded by implying that Trump had unusually small hands.
“Look at those hands. Are they small hands?” Trump asked at the debate. “If they’re small, something else must be small. I guarantee you, there’s no problem. I guarantee it.”
Elster said that “Trump Too Small” expressed his opinion about “the smallness of Donald Trump’s overall approach to governing.” Trump was president when the application was made.
The trademark office rejected Elster’s application. However, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled in Elster’s favour, determining that the activist’s First Amendment right to criticise public figures outweighed the government’s interest in protecting those figures’ privacy and publicity rights.
As a result, Elster’s application remained on hold at the trademark office, awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision.