Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/14pdf/13-352_c0n2.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

Cite as:  575 U. S. ____ (2015) 

13 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

B 
Trademark  registration  under  the  Lanham  Act  has  the
characteristics  of  a  quasi-private  right.    Registration  is  a
creature  of  the  Lanham  Act,  which  “confers  important 
legal rights and benefits on trademark owners who regis-
ter  their  marks.”  Ante,  at  3  (internal  quotation  marks
omitted).  Because  registration  is  merely  a  statutory  gov-
ernment entitlement, no one disputes that the TTAB may
constitutionally  adjudicate  a  registration  claim.    See 
Stern, supra, at ___ (slip op., at 19); Nelson 568–569. 

By  contrast,  the  right  to  adopt  and  exclusively  use  a
trademark appears to be a private property right that “has
been long recognized by the common law and the chancery 
courts of England and of this country.”  Trade-Mark Cases, 
100  U. S.  82,  92  (1879).    As  this  Court  explained  when
addressing  Congress’  first  trademark  statute,  enacted  in
1870,  the  exclusive  right  to  use  a  trademark  “was  not 
created  by  the  act  of  Congress,  and  does  not  now  depend 
upon  it  for  its  enforcement.”  Ibid.    “The  whole  system  of 
trade-mark property and the civil remedies for its protec-
tion  existed  long  anterior  to  that  act,  and  have  remained
in full force since its passage.”  Ibid.  Thus, it appears that
the  trademark  infringement  suit  at  issue  in  this  case
might  be  of  a  type  that  must  be  decided  by  “Article  III
judges in Article III courts.”  Stern, 564 U. S., at ___ (slip 
op., at 18).

The  majority,  however,  would  have  Article  III  courts
decide  infringement  claims  where  the  central  issue—
whether  there  is  a  likelihood  of  consumer  confusion  be-
tween  two  trademarks—has  already  been  decided  by  an
executive agency.  This raises two potential constitutional 
concerns.  First, it may deprive a trademark holder of the 
opportunity to have a core private right adjudicated in an
Article III court.  See id., at ___ (slip op., at 21).  Second, it 
may  effect  a  transfer  of  a  core  attribute  of  the  judicial 
power  to  an  executive  agency.  Cf.  Perez,  ante,  at  10–12