Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/22-704_4246.pdf
Page Number: 9.0

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

5 

Opinion of the Court 

based because it prohibited trademarks based only on one 
viewpoint, immoral or scandalous matter, while permitting
trademarks based on other viewpoints.  Id., at 393–394. 

The names clause does not facially discriminate against 
any viewpoint.  No matter the message a registrant wants
to convey, the names clause prohibits marks  that use an-
other  person’s  name  without  consent.    It  does  not  matter 
“whether the use of [the] name is flattering, critical or neu-
tral.”  2 McCarthy §13:37.50.  The Government is thus not 
singling out a trademark “based on the specific motivating
ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker.”  Reed, 
576  U. S.,  at  168  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted);  ac-
cord, Brunetti, 588 U. S., at 394 (explaining that a viewpoint-
based trademark law “distinguishes between two opposed 
sets of ideas”). 

Elster  suggests  that  the  names  clause  verges  on  view-
point discrimination in practice.  According to Elster, it is 
easier to obtain consent for a trademark that flatters a per-
son rather than mocks him.  This Court has found that a 
law can discriminate based on viewpoint in its practical op-
eration.  See Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 565 
(2011); R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 391 (1992).  But, 
here, there are many reasons why a person may be unable
to secure another’s consent to register a trademark bearing
his name.  Even when the trademark’s message is neutral 
or complimentary, a person may withhold consent to avoid
any association with the goods, or to prevent his name from
being exploited for another’s gain.2 

Although the names clause is not viewpoint based, it is 

—————— 

2 It is also hard to see the viewpoint discrimination that Elster alleges
in  practice.    The  PTO  has  refused  registration  of  trademarks  such  as 
“Welcome  President  Biden,”  “I  Stump  for  Trump,”  and  “Obama  Pa-
jama”—all because they contained another’s name without his consent, 
not because of the viewpoint conveyed.  See PTO, Office Action of Dec. 8, 
2020,  Serial  No.  90226753;  PTO,  Office  Action  of  Oct.  15,  2015,  Serial 
No. 86728410; In re Hoefflin, 97 USPQ 2d 1174, 1177–1178 (TTAB 2010).