Trump Too Small T-shirt slogan

'Trump Too Small' T-shirt slogan turns into US Supreme Court battle


By Blake Brittain

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Trump Too Small" - a phrase mocking former President Donald Trump that a California lawyer intended to slap on T-shirts - instead has become the center of another U.S. Supreme Court battle exploring the intersection of trademark law and free speech rights.

Here's What Gutter Guards Should Cost You In 2023
Here's What Gutter Guards Should Cost You In 2023
Ad
LeafFilter Partner
The justices are set to hear arguments on Wednesday in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's appeal of a lower court's decision that reversed the agency's denial of attorney Steve Elster's 2018 trademark application for "Trump Too Small." At issue is whether the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment free speech protections for criticism of public figures outweigh the agency's concerns over Trump's rights, as the lower court found.

FILE PHOTO: Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump shows off the size of his hands as rivals Marco Rubio (L), Ted Cruz (2nd R) and John Kasich (R) look on at the start of the U.S. Republican presidential candidates debate in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., March 3, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Young/File Photo
FILE PHOTO: Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump shows off the size of his hands as rivals Marco Rubio (L), Ted Cruz (2nd R) and John Kasich (R) look on at the start of the U.S. Republican presidential candidates debate in Detroit, Michigan, U.S., March 3, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Young/File Photo
© Thomson Reuters
The agency will try to convince the justices to uphold a 1946 federal law that bars trademarks featuring a person's name without consent. President Joe Biden's administration is seeking to protect Trump - the man he defeated in the 2020 U.S. election - from, in its view, having his name misappropriated in commerce. Trump is not personally involved in the case.

Related video: Trump turns his legal woes into a campaign stop (The Associated Press)
the defense table throughout opening statements throughout testimony and when
Current Time 0:57
/
Duration 1:41
The Associated Press
Trump turns his legal woes into a campaign stop
0
View on Watch
View on Watch
Elster has argued that a ruling favoring the government would give politicians improper control over speech about them. The agency, on the other hand, has said that trademarks like Elster's could restrict the free speech of others on political matters by giving legal ownership of certain words to specific people.
Trademarks protect identifiers of sources of goods, like brand names, logos and advertising slogans.

The Supreme Court in recent years has struck down two trademark laws based on free speech concerns. It ruled in favor of Asian-American rock band The Slants in 2017 against a ban on trademarks that "disparage," and in favor of artist Erik Brunetti against a prohibition on "immoral" or "scandalous" marks in a dispute over his "FUCT" brand in 2019.

Elster applied for the "Trump Too Small" trademark to use on T-shirts, inspired by an exchange between Trump and U.S. Senator Marco Rubio during a March 2016 Republican presidential candidate debate.

Adult Light-Up Ghostface Mask - Scream | Fun World | Halloween Store
Adult Light-Up Ghostface Mask - Scream | Fun World | Halloween Store
Ad
Party City US
Trump earlier sought to denigrate Rubio by calling him "Little Marco." Rubio responded at a campaign rally in Virginia that his rival had disproportionately small hands. Trump defended the size of his hands at the debate.

"Look at those hands. Are they small hands?" Trump asked. "If they're small, something else must be small. I guarantee you, there's no problem. I guarantee it."

Elster told the Supreme Court that his trademark uses a double meaning to criticize Trump while expressing his views about "the smallness of Donald Trump's overall approach to governing." Trump was president at the time of Elster's application.

The agency denied the application based on the 1946 law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit later reversed that decision.

'I STUMP FOR TRUMP'

U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing Biden's administration, told the Supreme Court in a brief that the 1946 law differed from the two that the justices recently invalidated because it did not restrict speech based on an applicant's viewpoint.

The trademark office said that the law is meant to prevent a person's name from "being exploited for another's commercial gain," and has been used to reject trademarks with positive connotations ("Better With Biden," "I Stump For Trump") and neutral ones ("Obama Pajama," "Royal Kate") in addition to critical messages.

"To give Elster a (trademark) registration, I don't think it really enhances in any way his right to speak," said Jonathan Moskin, a partner at law firm Foley & Lardner who wrote a brief supporting the agency on behalf of the International Trademark Association, which represents various trademark owners. "He can put his slogan anywhere he wants - whether or not he gets a registration."

Moskin also said that a Supreme Court trademark decision from June - in which the justices ruled in favor of Jack Daniel's in a dispute over dog toys that parodied its famous whiskey bottles - may have "pulled back a little bit" from the Slants and Brunetti precedents.

Elster in a brief to the court wrote that the 1946 law "effectively precludes the registration of any mark that criticizes public figures - even as it allows them to register their own positive messages about themselves." Elster noted that "Joe 2020" and "Hillary For America" were registered, but "No Joe in 2024" and "Hillary for Prison 2016" were rejected under the law.

Golden Gate University School of Law professor Samuel Ernst, who wrote a court brief supporting Elster, said a win for the government would create a "heckler's veto" for politicians who want to prevent trademarks criticizing them. Ernst also said the law at issue does not further the overarching trademark law goal of preventing marketplace confusion.

"Nobody would be confused into believing that Donald Trump is selling T-shirts accusing him of being too small," Ernst said.

(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)

***
Supreme Court to hear arguments in 'Trump Too Small' t-shirt case

California lawyer's t-shirt design mocking former President Donald Trump with the phrase "Trump Too Small" is now embroiled in a trademark battle set to go before the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

In 2018, attorney Steve Elster applied to secure the trademark for "Trump Too Small," though the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied the application. According to Reuters, Elster won an appeal in US District Court, and the USPTO in turn filed an appeal of that decision, which now moves the case to SCOTUS.

In the case — which does not personally involve the 45th president or anyone in his circle — Elster's attorneys are arguing that their client's First Amendment rights to criticize public figures shouldn't be infringed, and that the Court siding with the USPTO would amount to the government controlling citizens' constitutionally protected speech about elected officials. For their part, the USPTO counters that the t-shirt design violates a 1946 statute barring trademarks featuring a person's name without first obtaining their consent. As an office within the US Department of Commerce, this effectively amounts to the Biden administration protecting Biden's chief rival from having his name misused for commercial purposes.
POLL: Should Trump be allowed to hold office again?

Reuters reported that Elster's "Trump Too Small" t-shirt is a double entendre. While Elster said the phrase is a reference to "the smallness of Donald Trump's overall approach to governing," it's also meant to mock a 2016 exchange with Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida), who at the time was challenging Trump for the Republican presidential nomination. When Trump referred to the Florida senator as "little Marco," Rubio countered that Trump's hands were small — an attack that Trump felt the need to respond to.

Related video: Trump turns his legal woes into a campaign stop (The Associated Press)

The Associated Press
Trump turns his legal woes into a campaign stop
"Look at those hands. Are they small hands?" Trump responded. "If they're small, something else must be small. I guarantee you, there's no problem. I guarantee it."

Samuel Ernst, who is a professor for Golden Gate University School of Law, wrote a brief in support of Elster, argued that not allowing the trademark would lead to a "heckler's veto" for any politician who disagrees with public critique. He added the shirts would not prevent "marketplace confusion," which is the overarching goal of the USPTO.

"Nobody would be confused into believing that Donald Trump is selling T-shirts accusing him of being too small," Ernst told Reuters.

READ MORE: 'Hottest brand ion the world': Trump never thought his finances 'would be taken very seriously'

Related Articles:
;The Supreme Court only outlawed the kind of bias that its rightwing ...

;Sheldon Whitehouse proposes Supreme Court term limits with 'long shot' bill

;Trump 'a frightened little boy' with 'nothing he can do' to stop Georgia arraignment: Mary Trump