The question
Whether the Lanham Act's names clause, which bars federal registration of a trademark that identifies a particular living individual without written consent, violates the First Amendment right to free speech.
Vidal v. Elster
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the Federal Circuit and upheld the Lanham Act's names clause. It held that the clause does not violate the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the names clause is content based but viewpoint neutral because it turns only on whether a proposed mark contains a person's name, and that trademark's history and tradition support this content-based, viewpoint-neutral restriction.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion in part
Thomas, joined by Alito, Gorsuch, Roberts, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The names clause is content based because it turns on whether a proposed trademark contains a person's name, but it is not viewpoint based because it does not target any particular view. The clause does not violate the First Amendment. History and tradition of trademark restrictions on using another person's name support the constitutionality of this content-based, viewpoint-neutral restriction, so heightened scrutiny is not required.
Concurring in part
Kavanaugh, joined by Roberts
Agreed that the names clause is constitutional but wrote separately to state that a viewpoint-neutral, content-based trademark restriction may be constitutional even without a historical pedigree of the kind relied on by the Court.
Concurring in part
Barrett, joined by Kagan
Agreed that the names clause is constitutional but argued the Court should ground its holding in trademark law's longstanding purpose rather than resting on history and tradition alone, favoring a standard that asks whether the restriction is reasonable in light of trademark's function.
Concurring in the judgment
Sotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson
Concurred only in the judgment that the names clause is constitutional, arguing the Court should resolve the case using its established First Amendment framework for trademark and similar limited-forum registration benefits rather than relying on history and tradition.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that the Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment.
Source: syllabus, Held
The names clause bars registration of a mark that consists of or comprises a name identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, under 15 U.S.C. section 1052(c).
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court concluded the names clause is content based but not viewpoint based because it turns on whether the proposed trademark contains a person's name.
Source: syllabus, Held
Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court except as to Part III, with Alito and Gorsuch joining in full, Roberts and Kavanaugh joining all but Part III, and Barrett joining Parts I, II-A, and II-B.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Kagan and Jackson joined.
Source: syllabus, lineup