Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 38.0

Cite as:  602 U. S. ____ (2024) 

11 

BARRETT, J., concurring in part 

rule existed, the majority opinion does not identify it.  In-
stead, the Court draws from sources suggesting that a per-
son could not enforce a trademark with another individual’s 
name  against  that  individual.  See  ante,  at  14–15.  Nor 
could  she  fraudulently  attempt  to  pass  off  her  goods  as 
those of another person, using that person’s name.  Ante, at 
14.  So far, so good.  Yet the names clause prevents other 
uses of someone else’s name that the common law may have 
allowed.  And on that score, the Court does not fully grapple 
with countervailing evidence. 

In  1860,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Rhode  Island  concluded 
that the phrase “ ‘Roger Williams Long Cloth’ ” was “capable 
of distinguishing” the manufacturer’s goods and thus qual-
ified as a trademark.  Barrows v. Knight, 6 R. I. 434, 438. 
“ ‘Roger  Williams,’  though  the  name  of  a  famous  person,” 
the Court explained, was, “as applied to cotton cloth, a fancy 
name,” as would be the case with “any other her[o], living 
or  dead.”  Ibid.  (emphasis  added).  Likewise,  a  New  York 
court upheld the plaintiffs’ exclusive right to use the name 
“Bismarck”  to  designate  their  paper  collars,  as  they  were 
the first to “appropriate” the name for that purpose.  Mes-
serole v. Tynberg, 4 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 410, 414 (Ct. Com. Pl. 
1868).  The  court  thus  rejected  the  defendant’s  argument 
that  the  plaintiffs  could  not  adopt  “the  name  of  a  distin-
guished German citizen” as a trademark.  Id., at 412.  Sum-
marizing, the Second Circuit explained that “[t]he law per-
mits the adoption as a trade-mark of the name of a person 
who has achieved fame and distinction, provided the name 
is not descriptive of the quality or the character of the arti-
cle  or  a  geographical  name.”  Stephano  Bros.,  Inc.  v.  Sta-
matopoulos,  238  F.  89,  93  (1916).  See  also  Medlar  & 

—————— 
corporate  names,  not  written  or  printed  in  a  distinctive  manner,  or  of
designations  descriptive  of  the  character  or  quality  of  the  goods  with
which they are used, or of geographical names or terms.”  233 U. S., at 
467.