Account

Sign in to access your account and subscription

Supreme Court Upholds Names Clause in Trademark Law, Emphasizing Historical and Traditional Foundations

In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act's provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of or comprising the name of a particular living individual without the individual's written consent.

4 minute read August 01, 2024 at 12:11 AM
By
Howard J. Shire and Justin Tilghman
Supreme Court Upholds Names Clause in Trademark Law, Emphasizing Historical and Traditional Foundations

In a landmark decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Lanham Act's provision that prohibits the registration of trademarks consisting of or comprising the name of a particular living individual without the individual's written consent. 15 U.S.C. §1052(c) (authorizing refusal of a trademark application if it "[c]onsists of or comprises a name. portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent …."

This premium content is locked for The Intellectual Property Strategist subscribers only

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

Already have an account? Sign In Now

For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Continue Reading

AI claims are getting more scrutiny and regulators are looking more closely at whether organizations can substantiate what they say their AI does, while courts are beginning to address what happens when AI-generated search summaries get information wrong.

November 01, 2026

This is the second in a two-part series on AI-driven crises. Part 1 examined communications during an incident while the facts are still developing. Part 2 addresses crisis plans, governance and tabletop exercises before an agent acts on behalf of the business.

November 01, 2026