{"id":324486,"date":"2024-06-16T10:00:41","date_gmt":"2024-06-16T04:30:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=324486"},"modified":"2024-06-16T11:21:57","modified_gmt":"2024-06-16T05:51:57","slug":"trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/","title":{"rendered":"Refusal to register \u201cTrump too small\u201d trademark under Lanham Act\u2019s \u2018Names Clause\u2019 does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS):<\/span> While considering the instant matter revolving around US Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) refusal to federally register “Trump too small”<\/span> as a trademark on the ground that ‘Names Clause’ in the Lanham Act prohibits registration of a mark that “consists of or comprises a name (…) identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent<\/span>”, the Full Bench of the Court unanimously held that USPTO’s refusal to register the afore-stated trademark under Lanham Act’s ‘Names Clause’, does not violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.<\/p>\n

The Court clarified that this decision does not set out any comprehensive framework vis-a-vis trademark restrictions. “The Court holds only that history and tradition establish that the particular restriction here, the Names Clause in §1052(c), does not violate the First Amendment<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/span> In 2016, after watching a Presidential primary debate exchange between then-candidate Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio, the respondent sought to federally register the trademark “Trump too small”<\/span> to use on shirts and hats. An examiner from the Patent and Trademark Office refused registration based on the “names clause,” of Lanham Act.<\/p>\n

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board affirmed USPTO’s refusal, rejecting the respondent’s argument that the names clause violates his First Amendment right to free speech. However, the Federal Circuit reversed the Appeal Board’s decision.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the petitioner, who is the Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of USPTO, approached the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment:<\/span> The Bench comprising of John Roberts, CJ., and Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, JJ., unanimously rejected the argument raised by the respondent vis-a-vis violation of his First Amendment rights.<\/p>\n

The Court held that the ‘Names Clause’ of Lanham Act does not violate the First Amendment. It was noted that when enforcing the First Amendment’s prohibition against abridging freedom of speech, the Court must distinguish between content-based and content-neutral speech regulations. It was further pointed out that a content-based regulation “targets speech based on its communicative content,” and is ‘presumptively unconstitutional,’. The Court noted that viewpoint discrimination is a particularly “egregious form of content discrimination” that targets not merely a subject matter “but particular views taken by speakers on the subject”. Relying on many of its precedents, the Court pointed out that trademark restrictions that discriminate based on viewpoint violate the First Amendment.<\/p>\n

The Court pointed out that Lanham Act’s ‘Names Clause’ does not single out a trademark “based on the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker,”, it does not facially discriminate against any viewpoint. Although the ‘Names Clause’ is not viewpoint based, it is content based because it applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed, i.e., it turns on whether the proposed trademark contains a person’s name.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that a content-based regulation of speech is presumptively unconstitutional, however, SCOTUS has not yet decided whether heightened scrutiny extends to a content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restriction. “Trademark rights have always coexisted with the First Amendment, and the inherently content-based nature of trademark law has never been a cause for constitutional concern<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

Delving into the history of development of trademark law in the US, the Court stated that in 1870, Congress enacted the first federal trademark law, containing prohibitions on what could be protected as a trademark. It restricted a trademark based upon its content. And as trademark disputes increased, courts continued to assess trademarks based on their content. The content-based nature of trademark law did not change when Congress enacted the Lanham Act in 1946. Lanham Act’s comprehensive system for federal registration of trademarks continues to distinguish based on a mark’s content. “This history demonstrates that restrictions on trademarks have always turned on a mark’s content and have existed harmoniously alongside the First Amendment from the beginning. That relationship suggests that heightened scrutiny need not always apply in this unique context<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that the history and tradition of restricting trademarks containing names indicates that the ‘Names Clause’ is compatible with the First Amendment. The Court pointed out that restrictions on trademarking names have historically been grounded in the notion that a person has ownership over his own name<\/span>, and that he may not be excluded from using that name by another’s trademark. It was further pointed out that the common-law approach protected only a person’s right to use his own name, an understanding that was carried over into federal statutory law and included in the Names Clause.<\/p>\n

The Court further noted that restriction on trademarking names also reflects trademark law’s historical rationale of identifying the source of goods and thus ensuring that consumers know the source of a product and can evaluate it based upon the manufacturer’s reputation and goodwill. Moreover, the Names Clause respects the established connection between a trademark and its protection of the mark holder’s reputation.<\/p>\n

Relying on relevant precedents, the Court pointed out that it has also recognized that a party has no First Amendment right to piggyback off the goodwill another entity has built in its name<\/span>. The Court emphasized that a tradition of restricting the trademarking of names has coexisted with the First Amendment, and the Names Clause fits within that tradition. The Names Clause reflects the common-law tradition by prohibiting a person from obtaining a trademark of another living person’s name without consent, thereby protecting the other’s reputation and goodwill. “A firm grounding in traditional trademark law is sufficient to justify the content-based trademark restriction here, but a case presenting a content-based trademark restriction without a historical analog may require a different approach. In this case, the Court sees no reason to disturb this longstanding tradition, which supports the restriction of the use of another’s name in a trademark<\/span>”.<\/p>\n

The Court also clarified that its decision in the instant case does not set forth a comprehensive framework for judging whether all content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional, nor does the decision suggest that an equivalent history and tradition is required to uphold every content-based trademark restriction.<\/p>\n

[Katherine K. Vidal v. Steve Elster, No. 22—704, decided on 13-06-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In 2016, after watching a Presidential primary debate exchange between then-candidate Donald Trump and Senator Marco Rubio, the respondent sought to federally register the trademark “Trump too small” to use on shirts and hats.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":324496,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[38932,8341,5881,30014,3221,69878,48371],"class_list":["post-324486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-donald-trump","tag-intellectual-property-rights","tag-ipr","tag-scotus","tag-Trademark","tag-trump-too-small","tag-us-patent-and-trademark-office"],"yoast_head":"\nRefusal to register "Trump too small" trademark does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In 2016, after watching a Presidential debate involving Donald Trump, the respondent sought to register trademark "Trump too small" to use on shirts and hats.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Refusal to register \u201cTrump too small\u201d trademark under Lanham Act\u2019s \u2018Names Clause\u2019 does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In 2016, after watching a Presidential debate involving Donald Trump, the respondent sought to register trademark "Trump too small" to use on shirts and hats.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2024-06-16T04:30:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2024-06-16T05:51:57+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Refusal to register \u201cTrump too small\u201d trademark under Lanham Act\u2019s \u2018Names Clause\u2019 does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/\",\"name\":\"Refusal to register \\\"Trump too small\\\" trademark does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2024-06-16T04:30:41+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2024-06-16T05:51:57+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"description\":\"In 2016, after watching a Presidential debate involving Donald Trump, the respondent sought to register trademark \\\"Trump too small\\\" to use on shirts and hats.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.webp\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590,\"caption\":\"Trump too small trademark SCOTUS\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Refusal to register \u201cTrump too small\u201d trademark under Lanham Act\u2019s \u2018Names Clause\u2019 does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Refusal to register \"Trump too small\" trademark does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS","description":"In 2016, after watching a Presidential debate involving Donald Trump, the respondent sought to register trademark \"Trump too small\" to use on shirts and hats.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Refusal to register \u201cTrump too small\u201d trademark under Lanham Act\u2019s \u2018Names Clause\u2019 does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS","og_description":"In 2016, after watching a Presidential debate involving Donald Trump, the respondent sought to register trademark \"Trump too small\" to use on shirts and hats.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2024-06-16T04:30:41+00:00","article_modified_time":"2024-06-16T05:51:57+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Refusal to register \u201cTrump too small\u201d trademark under Lanham Act\u2019s \u2018Names Clause\u2019 does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/","name":"Refusal to register \"Trump too small\" trademark does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.webp","datePublished":"2024-06-16T04:30:41+00:00","dateModified":"2024-06-16T05:51:57+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"description":"In 2016, after watching a Presidential debate involving Donald Trump, the respondent sought to register trademark \"Trump too small\" to use on shirts and hats.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.webp","width":886,"height":590,"caption":"Trump too small trademark SCOTUS"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/06\/16\/trump-too-small-trademark-registration-donald-trump-scotus-legal-news\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Refusal to register \u201cTrump too small\u201d trademark under Lanham Act\u2019s \u2018Names Clause\u2019 does not violate the First Amendment: SCOTUS"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/06\/Trump-too-small-trademark-SCOTUS.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":266820,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/13\/in-refusing-a-local-organisation-to-fly-their-christian-flag-at-the-entrance-of-city-hall-did-city-of-boston-violate-the-first-amendment\/","url_meta":{"origin":324486,"position":0},"title":"In refusing a local organisation to fly their \u201cChristian Flag\u201d at the entrance of City Hall, did City of Boston violate the First Amendment?\u00a0 SCOTUS answers\u00a0","author":"Editor","date":"May 13, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States: While deciding the instant issue related to the First Amendment, the SCOTUS Justices had to decide that whether the City of Boston violated the Free Speech Clause in refusing to allow a local organisation fly their \u201cChristian flag\u201d. In an unanimous decision, the Court\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":282693,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/01\/30\/trademark-v-domain-name-bombay-hc-holds-trademark-infringement-suit-is-an-action-in-personam-court-cannot-impose-a-blanket-ban-on-swiggy-mark-in-future\/","url_meta":{"origin":324486,"position":1},"title":"[Trademark v. Domain Name] Bombay HC holds trademark infringement suit is an action in personam; Court cannot impose a blanket ban on \u201cSwiggy\u201d mark in future","author":"Editor","date":"January 30, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe Court held that in every case of trademark infringement, the plaintiff claiming infringement of its registered mark is required to claim relief in the context of specific instances of infringement, relatable to individuals against whom orders can be passed by the Court.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/11\/Bombay-High-Court-1.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":240396,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/12\/09\/scotus-issues-one-sentence-refusal-to-republicans-seeking-to-overturn-joe-bidens-victory-in-the-state-of-pennsylvania\/","url_meta":{"origin":324486,"position":2},"title":"SCOTUS issues \u201cone-sentence\u201d refusal to Republicans seeking to overturn Joe Biden\u2019s victory in the state of Pennsylvania","author":"Editor","date":"December 9, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of The United States (SCOTUS): In a major setback to the Republican Party\u2019s attempts to invalidate the results of recent Presidential Elections, Full Bench of the SCOTUS in a \u201cone sentence\u201d Order, refused a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to overturn Joseph R. Biden Jr.\u2019s victory in the state\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Hot Off The Press"","block_context":{"text":"Hot Off The Press","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/news\/hot_off_the_press\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":316190,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/03\/06\/sc-colorado-decision-name-removal-donald-trump-presidential-primary-ballot-scotus-legal-news\/","url_meta":{"origin":324486,"position":3},"title":"SCOTUS reverses Colorado Supreme Court\u2019s decision to remove Donald Trump\u2019s name from the state\u2019s presidential primary ballot","author":"Sucheta","date":"March 6, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In a unanimous verdict, the SCOTUS held that power to enforce Section 3 of 14th Amendment to the US Constitution against federal officeholders and candidates, lies with the Congress rather than the States.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Donald Trump Colorado Supreme Court presidential primary ballot SCOTUS","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Donald-Trump-Colorado-Supreme-Court-presidential-primary-ballot-SCOTUS.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Donald-Trump-Colorado-Supreme-Court-presidential-primary-ballot-SCOTUS.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Donald-Trump-Colorado-Supreme-Court-presidential-primary-ballot-SCOTUS.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Donald-Trump-Colorado-Supreme-Court-presidential-primary-ballot-SCOTUS.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":195725,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/05\/02\/inter-partes-review-under-the-leahy-smith-america-invents-act-does-not-violate-article-iii-or-seventh-schedule-of-us-constitution\/","url_meta":{"origin":324486,"position":4},"title":"Inter partes review under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, does not violate Article III or Seventh Schedule of US Constitution","author":"Saba","date":"May 2, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of United States: While determining that whether the \u2018inter partes review\u2019 established under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act violates Article III or the Seventh Amendment of the US Constitution, the Court by a ratio of 7:2, held that, inter partes review does not violate the Seventh Amendment and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":295953,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/04\/scotus-colorado-anti-discrimination-laws-cannot-compel-creating-designs-contrary-personal-beliefs-marriage\/","url_meta":{"origin":324486,"position":5},"title":"Colorado’s anti-discrimination law cannot compel a wedding website designer to create expressive designs contrary to her personal beliefs on marriage: SCOTUS","author":"Sucheta","date":"July 4, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court with a ratio of 6:3 protected the First Amendment right of the petitioner who believes in heterosexual marriages only.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"supreme court of the united states","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/supreme-court-of-the-united-states.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=324486"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324486\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/324496"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=324486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=324486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=324486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}