Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf
Page Number: 21.0

Cite as:  582 U. S. ____ (2017) 

17 

Opinion of the Court 

owns  the  land”;  and  “[t]he  monuments  that  are  accepted 
. . . are meant to convey and have the effect of conveying a
government message.”  Id., at 472. 
Trademarks  share  none  of 

these  characteristics. 
Trademarks  have  not  traditionally  been  used  to  convey  a 
Government  message.    With  the  exception  of  the  enforce-
ment of 15 U. S. C. §1052(a), the viewpoint expressed by a
mark  has  not  played  a  role  in  the  decision  whether  to 
place it on the principal register.  And there is no evidence 
that the public associates the contents of trademarks with
the Federal Government. 

This  brings  us  to  the  case  on  which  the  Government
relies most heavily, Walker,  which  likely marks the outer 
bounds  of  the  government-speech  doctrine.    Holding  that
the  messages  on  Texas  specialty  license  plates  are  gov-
ernment  speech,  the  Walker  Court  cited  three  factors 
distilled from Summum.  576 U. S., at ___–___ (slip op., at 
7–8).  First,  license  plates  have  long  been  used  by  the 
States to convey state messages.  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., 
at  9–10).  Second,  license  plates  “are  often  closely  identi-
fied  in  the  public  mind”  with  the  State,  since  they  are
manufactured and owned by the State, generally designed
by the State, and serve as a form of “government ID.”  Id., 
at ___ (slip op., at 10) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Third,  Texas  “maintain[ed]  direct  control  over  the  mes- 
sages  conveyed  on  its  specialty  plates.”    Id.,  at  ___  (slip
op.,  at  11).   As  explained  above,  none  of  these  factors  are
present in this case.

In sum, the federal registration of trademarks is vastly
different from the beef ads in Johanns, the monuments in 
Summum, and even the specialty license plates in Walker. 
Holding that the registration of a trademark converts the 
mark into government speech would constitute a huge and 
dangerous  extension  of  the  government-speech  doctrine.
For  if  the  registration  of  trademarks  constituted  govern-
ment  speech,  other  systems  of  government  registration