In this Iancu v. Brunetti, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2019 invalidated a
provision of federal trademark law that prohibited “immoral or scandalous”
marks. The Court viewed the provision as sanctioning viewpoint
discrimination and also as substantially overbroad.

Although parody, like satire, is generally recognized as protected speech under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. ____ (2023), demonstrates that this is not always so when it comes to trademarking.   The case, which was unanimously decided in an opinion written by

In Matal v. Tam (2017), the Supreme Court ruled that a federal law
prohibiting disparaging trademark names was unconstitutional under the
First Amendment.

The Supreme Court in Vidal v. Elster upheld the “names clause” of trademark law, saying it did not violate free speech protections in the First Amendment. The case started after the trademark office rejected Steve Elster’s trademark application for “Trump too small” because he didn’t have consent by Trump to use his name.