Vidal v. Elster
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Vidal v. Elster and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Vidal v. Elster.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Lanham Act's names clause, which restricts trademark registration of a living person's name without consent, violates the First Amendment. The Court concluded that the clause is content-based but viewpoint-neutral and does not infringe on free speech rights. The decision is based on the historical coexistence of trademark law and the First Amendment.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Vidal v. Elster.
The Court held that the Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Vidal v. Elster. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Vidal v. Elster
The case primarily addresses whether the Lanham Act's names clause violates the First Amendment's free speech protections.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Vidal v. Elster
The Court exercises its power to review and determine the constitutionality of the names clause under the First Amendment.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)This decision is narrow. It does not set forth a comprehensive framework for judging whether all content-based but viewpoint-neutral trademark restrictions are constitutional.
-
Why Substantive Due Process is relevant to Vidal v. Elster
The Court considers the historical and traditional context of trademark law to determine if the names clause is compatible with constitutional protections.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The history and tradition of restricting trademarks containing names is sufficient to conclude that the names clause is compatible with the First Amendment.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Vidal v. Elster that support the summary and concepts above.
The Lanham Act's names clause does not violate the First Amendment.
The content-based nature of trademark protection is compelled by the historical rationales of trademark law.
A tradition of restricting the trademarking of names has coexisted with the First Amendment.
