Jeremy Peter Green is an entrepreneurship attorney who helps businesses protect and expand their brands. Green handled 770 new federal trademark applications in 2018, making him the 10th most prolific trademark attorney in the United States. Green graduated from Northwestern University School of Law on a full scholarship.
Green has been profiled on USA Today, CNBC, CNN Money, NPR's Morning Edition, WIRED, MSNBC, the New York Daily News, HLN, CNN Politics, DCist, Vox.com, CNET, Mic.com, NBC News, Refinery29, the Globe and Mail, and several other news sources. He is best known for owning ClintonKaine.com and hosting "Hillary Potter" fan fiction there during the 2016 election, before selling the domain.
Green is based in Lower Manhattan in New York City. He formerly served as in-house General Counsel and Webmaster for Teamsters Local 922 in Washington, DC.
You may contact him at email@example.com.
Why Are Dead Presidents the Only Dead People with Trademark Protections?
Initial Question: Is It Illegal to Trademark a President’s Name?
Disclaimer: This post arguably constitutes legal advice and in a way I am your lawyer now. At the end of this post, I will no longer be your lawyer, unless I already was before.
A client asked me to research this recently. One of her investors insisted there was a special rule against trademarking a president’s name. I told my client I was fairly certain that this wasn’t true, but if she really wanted to be sure, I could spend about thirty minutes researching it at my hourly rate. She said she considered it worth following up on and gave me the green light.
First, for some general background, no trademark can be registered if it uses the name or likeness of any particular living individual without their written consent. This is generally only a problem if, in the eyes of consumers, the brand is clearly meant to reference a living person. For example, if you want to trademark a brand of cement called APPLE CEMENT, Fiona Apple probably won’t have a case against you unless you’re using a picture of her in your branding. However, if you want to trademark a brand of soda called LEONARDO DICAPRIO COLA, it likely will be a problem because most consumers will see the distinct name and assume the brand has been endorsed or developed by the famous actor. So here is the real question this blog post needs to answer:
Real Question: “Is there a special rule against trademarking a president’s name that doesn’t apply to any other class of person?”
To my surprise, my client’s investor was partially correct.
Living presidents don’t seem to have greater protections than any other famous person. What’s interesting is that deceased presidents with living widows do have an additional protection. (For the purpose of convenience, I will be using the word “widow” to describe a deceased person’s surviving spouse of any gender.) Dead presidents have a special privilege carved out for them in the Lanham Act — the U.S.’s primary trademark statute — which only applies as long as their widow is living. §1052(c) of the act states that no trademark can be registered if it “[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.”
Why Does This Rule Exist?
Why would they add such a specific and quirky carve-out to an otherwise extremely broad rule? I found no recorded legislative history pertaining to this rule, but here’s my best guess: The Lanham Act was passed in 1946, the year after Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s death, and signed by President Truman, so perhaps this carve-out was put in there specifically to protect Eleanor Roosevelt — who would go on to outlive her husband by 17 years — from people using her late husband’s name and likeness to sell products while she was still alive to see. My second best guess is that Harry Truman had his own wife Bess in mind and demanded that the rule be put in there, conflict of interest be damned!