Today scotus granted cert in an interesting trademark/first amendment case which will surely get people worked up for all of the wrong reasons. Basically, federal law prohibits trademarking things that involve a president's name during their lifetime or that of their widow, without their consent. Petitioner sought mark for some sort of "trump sucks" slogan, which was denied per the law. Federal circuit reversed on first amendment grounds.
While that actually sounds intuitively right at first blush, the "technical" question is a little more subtle - ie, is the congressionally directed limitation on conferring a benefit (ie the mark) actually a regulation of speech, or just a refusal to confer the benefit. And if the latter, does it matter?
Interestingly, the appeal was brought by the current SG. I guess they're worried about future 'biden sucks' slogans. (I kid, I kid.)
While that actually sounds intuitively right at first blush, the "technical" question is a little more subtle - ie, is the congressionally directed limitation on conferring a benefit (ie the mark) actually a regulation of speech, or just a refusal to confer the benefit. And if the latter, does it matter?
Interestingly, the appeal was brought by the current SG. I guess they're worried about future 'biden sucks' slogans. (I kid, I kid.)
