Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 27

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

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 22–704 
_________________ 

KATHERINE K. VIDAL, UNDER SECRETARY OF 
COMMERCE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY 
AND DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES PATENT 
AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, PETITIONER 
v. STEVE ELSTER 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF 
APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

[June 13, 2024] 

JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH,  with  whom  THE  CHIEF  JUSTICE 

joins, concurring in part. 

I join all but Part III of the Court’s opinion.  I agree with 
the  Court  that  the  names  clause  is  constitutional, 
particularly in light of the long history of restricting the use 
of another’s name in a trademark.  In my view, a viewpoint-
neutral, content-based trademark restriction might well be 
constitutional even absent such a historical pedigree.  We 
can  address  that  distinct  question  as  appropriate  in  a
future case.  Cf., e.g., post, at 7–9 (BARRETT, J., concurring
in part).