neroguru.blogg.se

• #Scotus decision today registration

The United States Patent & Trademark Office refused registration under Section 2(c), and the Trademark and Trial Appeal Board upheld that decision because the mark identified the by-then-former president without his consent. Section 2(c) of the Lanham Act prohibits federal registration of any trademark that “onsists of or comprises a name … identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent,” or the name “of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow,” “except by the written consent of the widow.” Steve Elster sought to register the mark “Trump too small” for use on T-shirts to convey a political message about the then-President Donald Trump. Elster is vying for another spot on the court’s growing docket of cases related to our 45th president. It will be considering only two cases for the second time. This week the court will be considering 150 certiorari petitions and applications at its conference Thursday. A short explanation of relists is available here. The Relist Watch column examines cert petitions that the Supreme Court has “relisted” for its upcoming conference. RELIST WATCH Prohibiting trademarks using other people’s names - and hypothetical jurisdiction By John Elwood on at 2:43 pm Board of Education for SC case (Jessica Holdman, The Post and Courier) Descendants asking US Supreme Court to rename Brown v.There’s Unsettling New Evidence About William Rehnquist’s Views on Segregation (Richard L.Jackson defends “the right to strike” in her first big dissent (Chris Geidner, Law Dork).

Supreme Court gives boost to whistleblowers in drug pricing case (John Kruzel, Reuters) Supreme Court Backs Employer in Suit Over Strike Losses (Noam Scheiber, The New York Times).WHAT WE'RE READING The morning read for Friday, June 2 By SCOTUSblog on at 10:16 amĮach weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Is Wrong About Andy Warhol (Richard Meyer, The New York Times).Waiting and Planning for a Supreme Court Defeat (Scott Jaschik, Inside Higher Education).As Supreme Court considers affirmative action, colleges see few other ways to diversity goals (Collin Binkley, The Associated Press).Supreme Court’s conservative majority to decide direction of law on race, elections and religious freedom this month (Ariane de Vogue, CNN).Supreme Court will hear attempt to trademark ‘Trump Too Small’ (Robert Barnes, The Washington Post).Here, Schacter and other Stanford faculty discuss some of the seismic changes the Supreme Court has set in motion and what to expect from a court whose ideology tends to diverge from public opinion, as well as other scholarship related to how governance is structured in the United States.WHAT WE'RE READING The morning read for Monday, June 5 By SCOTUSblog on at 10:23 amĮach weekday, we select a short list of news articles, commentary, and other noteworthy links related to the Supreme Court. “When paired with yesterday’s decision striking down New York’s law requiring gun permits, we see an aggressive Court that is imposing on the country dramatic change in doctrine and policy,” said Jane Schacter, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, the day after the 6-3 ruling in Dobbs v. Indeed, the recent rulings have led many Americans to wonder what the implications will be for other rights, such as access to birth control and marriage equality.įor some Stanford scholars, the rulings indicate how the conservative-leaning court views the relationship between the three branches of government – legislative, executive, and judicial – and where they view the power for decision-making lies as they establish new precedent on, for example, what is considered a congressional issue versus a constitutional one, and what is a matter for a state legislature versus a federal body. The recent decisions made by the U.S Supreme Court – from overturning the constitutional right to abortion, to limiting the EPA’s regulation of carbon emissions, to expanding the carrying of concealed weapons, among other rulings – are sending shockwaves across the country.