For other news stories about the dispute, see: (1) www.law360.com/articles/240... and (2) www.vitallaw.com/news/tradema...

The court's opinion is here: business.cch.com/ipld/PennSta...

I always thought this was a person’s name. Interesting issue!

I just found out about this podcast (or “conversational audiobook”) which does a deep dive into tech companies and various other interesting topics, and plan to listen to more episodes. Info is here: www.acquired.fm/about

The case is DadBod Apparel LLC v. Hildawn Design LLC et al., No. 5:25-cv-01599, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio: dockets.justia.com/docket/ohio/...

Accused infringers that display such terms on the outside surface of apparel should be able to defend trademark infringement claims on the ground these are merely informational/expressive uses of the phrase and the uses are aesthetically functional (see the Lettuce Turnip the Beet case).

The USPTO should refuse to register such marks (and words like DadBod) on the ground the phrases fail to function as marks and/or are aesthetically functional for these goods since phrases like this are typically featured on the front or back of the apparel, and not just on hangtags or labels.

…perhaps we need new USPTO procedures that allow the public to ask the USPTO to re-examine trademark applications/registrations like this that could harm fair competition and free expression?

…on the ground they are generic for the goods, merely descriptive without secondary meaning, and/or merely informational matter that fails to function as a mark. If SCOTUS agrees with the Federal Circuit that members of the public like Prof. Curtin do not have standing to challenge such marks,…

RAPUNZEL should not be registered as a trademark for dolls - no one should have the exclusive trademark right to use this name in connection with dolls. Regardless of whether you think consumers should have standing to challenge the registration of such marks, they should be refused registration…