U.S. Supreme Court Decides ‘Trump Too Small’ Case – What It Means For Trademark Law

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on the ‘Trump Too Small’ case has stirred significant interest across various sectors, from legal experts to businesses and the general public. This landmark case delves into the complexities of trademark law and its applications, setting a precedent that could influence future legal battles over trademarks.

If you have any questions about the trademark registration process or you believe you have a case/you have been named in a case involving trademark infringement, then feel free to contact us. We keep all communications confidential.


The Origin of the ‘Trump Too Small’ Phrase

The phrase ‘Trump Too Small’ emerged during the 2016 presidential campaign, stemming from a political debate that went viral. It quickly became a popular meme, leading to its use on various merchandise and online platforms. The phrase’s popularity sparked a legal dispute over its trademark protection, raising questions about its commercial use and the limits of trademark law.

Previous Legal Battles

Before reaching the Supreme Court, the ‘Trump Too Small’ case saw several rounds in lower courts. The initial dispute began when an individual attempted to trademark the phrase, leading to opposition from entities associated with Donald Trump. The legal battles highlighted the challenges of balancing free speech, political expression, and trademark protection.

Trademark Law Basics

What is Trademark Law?

Trademark law is designed to protect brand names, logos, and other identifiers that distinguish goods and services in the marketplace. It ensures that consumers can identify the source of products and services, preventing confusion and protecting the goodwill of businesses.

Importance of Trademark Protection

Trademarks are vital for businesses as they establish brand identity and trust. Protecting a trademark prevents others from using similar marks that could mislead consumers or damage a brand’s reputation. Effective trademark protection is essential for maintaining a competitive edge in the market.

The Case Details


Legal Arguments from Both Sides

The applicant argued that the phrase ‘Trump Too Small’ had acquired distinctiveness and was used in commerce, thus deserving trademark protection. On the other hand, Trump’s team contended that the phrase was not eligible for trademark due to its political context and lack of a clear commercial identity.

Lower Court Decisions

Lower courts delivered mixed rulings, reflecting the complexity of the case. Some courts sided with the applicant, recognizing the phrase’s commercial use, while others favored Trump’s argument, emphasizing the political and potentially disparaging nature of the phrase.

Supreme Court’s Review

Why the Supreme Court Took the Case

The Supreme Court decided to hear the case due to its broader implications for trademark law, particularly regarding the intersection of free speech and trademark protection. The case presented an opportunity to clarify legal standards and address conflicting lower court decisions.

Key Questions Considered

The Supreme Court considered several key questions:

  • Can a politically charged phrase be trademarked?
  • How should courts balance free speech rights with trademark protection?
  • What constitutes distinctiveness and commercial use in trademark law?

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Majority Opinion

The majority opinion held that the ‘Trump Too Small’ phrase could not be trademarked. The Court emphasized that the phrase was primarily political and not sufficiently distinctive as a commercial trademark. The decision underscored the need to protect political speech from being monopolized through trademark law.

Dissenting Opinion

The dissenting opinion argued that the phrase had acquired a commercial identity and should be eligible for trademark protection. The dissenters highlighted the potential chilling effect on free speech if political expressions could not be protected as trademarks.

Implications for Trademark Law

Immediate Impact on ‘Trump Too Small’

The decision means that ‘Trump Too Small’ cannot be trademarked, allowing its continued use in political discourse and merchandise without exclusive ownership. This outcome reinforces the protection of political speech under trademark law.

Broader Implications for Trademark Disputes

The ruling sets a precedent that phrases with strong political connotations may face significant hurdles in obtaining trademark protection. It signals a cautious approach to granting trademarks that could restrict political expression.

Public Opinion

Public reactions have been mixed, with some applauding the decision to protect free speech, while others express concern over the implications for commercial trademarks. The case has sparked widespread debate on social media and in the press.

What This Means for Small and Large Businesses

For businesses, this decision underscores the importance of clear commercial distinctiveness in trademark applications. Both small and large companies may need to reassess their trademark strategies, particularly when dealing with phrases that could be seen as political or controversial.




The Supreme Court’s decision on the ‘Trump Too Small’ case marks a significant moment in trademark law, emphasizing the protection of political speech while clarifying the standards for trademark eligibility. This ruling will likely shape future legal battles and influence how businesses approach their trademark strategies.