Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 35

8 

VIDAL v. ELSTER 

BARRETT, J., concurring in part 

is “[i]mplicit in the concept of ” the trademark registration
system much like it is in a limited public forum.  Perry, 460 
U. S., at 49.  Federal registration “help[s] protect marks” by
conferring strong legal rights on markowners who register
them.  B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc., 575 
U. S. 138, 142 (2015).  Congress provided for “national pro-
tection of trademarks in order to secure to the owner of the 
mark the goodwill of his business and to protect the ability 
of  consumers  to  distinguish  among  competing  producers,”
matching trademark’s historical goals.  Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. 
Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 198 (1985); see su-
pra, at 4–5.  A mark can only fulfill those goals to the extent 
that it “tells the public who is responsible for [the] product.” 
Jack  Daniel’s,  599  U. S.,  at  146.   This  is  a  content-based 
requirement.

Content-based criteria for trademark registration do not
abridge the right to free speech so long as they reasonably 
relate to the preservation of the markowner’s goodwill and 
the  prevention  of  consumer  confusion.    A  particular  re-
striction will serve those goals if it helps ensure that regis-
tered marks actually function as source identifiers.  Nota-
bly, “the lead criterion for registration is that the mark ‘in
fact  serve  as  a  “trademark”  to  identify  and  distinguish 
goods.’ ”  Ibid. (quoting 3 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Un-
fair Competition §19:10 (5th ed. 2023) (McCarthy)).  Other 
registration  criteria  help  to  carry  out  that  threshold  re-
quirement.  For instance, the Lanham Act prohibits the reg-
istration of marks that are “merely descriptive” of the ap-
  As  courts 
plicant’s  goods. 
frequently explained in the early years of trademark, marks
that simply describe the kind and quality of the good do not 

15  U. S. C.  §1052(e)(1).

—————— 
position.  Rather, I view the content-based nature of the limited public 
forum as analogous to the trademark registration system.  Moreover, by 
characterizing my argument as a conclusory statement that the limited
public forum framework is “ ‘apt,’ ” JUSTICE THOMAS ignores my reasons 
for drawing the analogy.  Ibid.