Interesting case

I tuned into this clip because it’s mainly about the Sammy case. The latter part is also interesting.

A t-shirt vendor tried to get a trademark on the shirt slogan ‘Trump Too Small’. The trademark office denied it because a trademark using the name of a living person must have the specific consent of the target.

The “free speech” advocates, including FIRE, are saying that every comment on a political figure must be allowed in all circumstances.

The government is saying that trademarks are NOT the same thing as commentary. Trademarks, like patents and copyrights, are solely about making money from an idea or word. It doesn’t matter if the named person is famous or political; you still need a contract if you’re going to make money from this name.

(The whole question wouldn’t come up when the name is not famous right now. The t-shirt vendor wouldn’t try to make money from ‘Smith Too Small’ or ‘Harding Too Soft’. Smith is generic and Harding is no longer famous.)

I agree with the government. Obviously this position is advantageous for a D administration when the target is R, but it’s still the correct way of interpreting IP.

= = = = =

Later exception thought: There’s a more recent Harding who gained fame by kneecapping her rival with a hard metal rod, but she has also been out of the public eye for a long time.