Breyer dissents. Sotomayor files a concurring opinion.
"We reject the PTO's sweeping rule," RBG writes.
This continues the grand IP rivalry between Justice Ginsburg (who is generally pro copright/trademark owner) and Justice Breyer (who traditionally takes a narrower view of copyright and trademark protection).
"Consumers, according to lower court determinations uncontested here by the PTO, do not perceive the term 'Booking.com' to signify online hotel-reservation services as a class. In circumstances like those this case presents, a 'generic.com' term is not generic and can be eligible for federal trademark registration."
Sotomayor's concurring opinion adds "two observations": The court's opinion does not suggest "that surveys are the 'be-all and end-all" of determining whether a mark is generic. And the PTO may have properly concluded that Booking.com is generic but that question is not before the Court.
Breyer dissents, arguing that today's "result is inconsistent with trademark principles and sound trademark policy."
I'm waiting but the broadcast networks have not yet broken into programming with news of this trademark decision.
We have the second decision. It is Espinoza.
It is by Roberts, and the vote is 5-4.
R number posted, so Espinoza is it for today.
This is a case in which the Montana Supreme Court ruled that a program which provided a tax credit for scholarships at private schools violated the state constitution. The question was whether the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution barred that application of the state's constitution.
The Court holds that the application of the provision of the state constitution barring aid to religious schools discriminated against religious schools and the families whose children attend or hope to attend the in violation of the free exercise clause.
There are many opinions here, which is presumably why this case took so long.
Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh all joined the Roberts opinin in full.
Thomas filed a concurring opinion joined by Gorsuch.
Alito and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions.
Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion joined by Kagan.
Breyer filed a dissenting opinion joined in part by Kagan.
Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion.
Folks, Espinoza is kind of a big deal for my main news outlet, so I am going to step away to get out a bulletin. In case I don't make it back today, we will obviously be doing this again soon.
Alito's concurrence is interesting. He notes that in the unanimous jury case, he argued that the racist origins of Louisiana's non-unanimous jury rule was irrelevant. He says because he lost, it is now relevant whether Montana's constitutional provision is rooted in religious discrimination. He then argues at length that it was based in anti-Catholic prejudice (an issue the majority of the Court avoided by holding that the provision discriminates on its face).
Roberts writes that the court's recent decision in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer "distilled" the Court's precedents into the "unremarkable" conclusion "that disqualifying otherwise eligible recipients from a public benefit solely because of their religious character imposes 'a penalty on the free exercise of religion that triggers the most exacting scrutiny.'"
"This case also turns on religious status and not religious use," Roberts writes.
Submit Event
