In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court rejected Steve Elster’s attempt to trademark the phrase “Trump Too Small.” Elster, a lawyer in California, had been using the phrase on t-shirts that he was selling for $25 each. Despite his efforts to secure a trademark for the phrase, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application.
Elster went on to claim that his First Amendment rights had been violated by the denial of his trademark application. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court, where it was ultimately heard. However, the Justices ruled against him, with Clarence Thomas stating that Elster’s rights had not been violated.
The phrase “Trump Too Small” originated from Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. During the campaign, Trump referred to Marco Rubio as “little Marco,” prompting Rubio to make a comment about Trump’s hands. This led to Trump defending the size of his hands in a televised debate, which ultimately gave rise to the phrase that Elster attempted to trademark.
Continued Shirt Sales
Despite not being able to secure a trademark for the phrase, Elster is still able to sell his “Trump Too Small” shirts online. This means that he can continue to capitalize on the popularity of the phrase, even without the legal rights to it.
While Elster may have failed in his attempt to trademark the phrase “Trump Too Small,” he can still profit from selling merchandise featuring the phrase. The case serves as a reminder of the complexities of trademark law and the limitations placed on trademarks that reference living individuals without their consent. It also highlights the importance of understanding the legal implications of attempting to trademark controversial or politically charged phrases.
Leave a Reply