Hands off: ‘Trump too small’ can’t be trademarked, Supreme Court rules

A man’s attempt to trademark the phrase “TRUMP TOO SMALL” has run its course after the Supreme Court ruled that the law protecting individuals from having their name trademarked without their consent does not violate the First Amendment.

In a mostly unanimous decision on Thursday, Justice Clarence Thomas said the law restricting the trademarking of names reflects the, “historic rationale of identifying the source of goods” to ensure “customers know the source of a product”.

“A party has no First Amendment right to piggyback off the goodwill another entity has built in its name,” Justice Thomas added.

Steve Elster, tried to trademark the phrase “TRUMP TOO SMALL” after making and selling t-shirts with the slogan and a list of the former president’s policies which he dubbed “small”.

The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied the trademark, claiming it violated a portion of the law that prevents the trademarking of an individual’s name without their permission. Mr Elster disputed that decision and argued “Trump” was part of his right to criticize the government under the First Amendment which protects freedom of speech.

The court’s decision rejects Elster’s attempts to trademark the phrase in this instance but declines to rule if all “viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional.”

The decision was not unexpected.

During oral arguments in November, justices appeared unmoved by Mr Elster’s argument that refusing the trademark would stifle free speech.

Justices Thomas, Sotomayor and Jackson questioned how the refusal to approve a trademark application violates the First Amendment if Mr Elster was still permitted to print and sell the shirts.

“He can sell as many shirts with this saying and the government’s