Yep, this is one Supreme Court case that holds “big” implications for the 2024 election. So, what’s the big deal?
Well, back in 2017, some lawyer in California (why is it always lawyers and California?) tried to register the phrase “Trump Too Small” with the Patent and Trademark Office. The government agency denied the request—probably because they knew it was not true.
This lawyer, having an inflated view of his self-importance, decided to litigate this crucial issue in hopes that he could enlarge his stature and that of his personal wealth. (Again, typical Democrat, wanting to get rich off the hard work of others.)
This guy is arguing that it’s his First Amendment right to falsely claim “Trump Too Small”. On appeal, a federal court ruled that the government was wrong to deny his trademark application, and this lawyer could print t-shirts that impugned Trump’s manhood. The Patent office has appealed this case to the US Supreme Court.
The Justice Department arguing on behalf of Katherine Vidal, under secretary of commerce for intellectual property, eventually appealed the case up to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Lanham Act, which is a federal statute aimed at protecting intellectual property in trademark designations, gives the PTO constitutional authority to block Elster’s trademark request.
“When registration is refused because a mark ‘[c]onsists of or comprises a name…identifying a particular living individual’ without ‘his written consent,’ ‘[n]o speech is being restricted; no one is being punished,’” the DOJ’s petition to the high court says.Size of Trump’s hands at center of Supreme Court trademark case: ‘Trump Too Small’
I’m sure this case is one sticky mess that the Court would rather avoid in these divisive political times. Its implications on the 2024 political cycle are out there for everyone to see. The government is right that living folks do have some protections to their name and reputation. (Perhaps some barn doors in this life are best left unopened.)
Folks the truth is that this guy can print the t-shirts and sell them all he wants; however, for him to own the phrase that we all know belongs to Marco Rubio is criminal. Claiming a legal right to spread falsehoods clearly belongs exclusively to the mainstream media.
We here at Really Right stand with President Trump. We trust that the Court will rise to this challenge to our great President (and his manhood) and send this lawyer shrinking back into the shadows of obscurity. We all know that such false claims can’t stand up to public scrutiny. It’s embarrassing that any Democrat would dream of comparing themselves with President Trump.
Anyway, this vital case will be heard by the Court tomorrow and their decision will be out just in time for the beginning of the Presidential Primary season.