'Why did they even take this case?': Internet criticizes lawyer for 'wasting' time as Supreme Court rejects 'Trump too small' trademark bid

WASHINGTON, DC: On Thursday, June 13, the Supreme Court rejected a California lawyer's bid to trademark  "Trump too small," phrase a reference to a crude joke made about former President Donald Trump.

The court ruled unanimously in favor of the US Patent and Trademark Office over its decision to reject the application brought by Steve Elster tossing his free speech challenge to the rejection. 

Supreme Court says rejection does not violate the right to free speech 

In this action, the court reversed a decision made by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Elster’s application was rejected under a provision of federal law prohibiting the registration of marks that identify a living person without their consent.

Elster argued that this prohibition violated his First Amendment right to free speech.

However, Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, stated, "Elster contends that this prohibition violates his First Amendment right to free speech. We hold that it does not," The Hill reported. 

“We see no reason to disturb this longstanding tradition, which supports the restriction of the use of another’s name in a trademark," Justice Thomas wrote.

Tracing back the origin of 'Trump to small' phrase 

The “Trump too small” phrase refers to a 2016 Republican presidential primary debate where Trump and Senator Marco Rubio of Florida exchanged personal insults.

Rubio made fun of Trump’s hand size, joking, “And you know what they say about guys with small hands.”

During the debate, Trump responded, “He referred to my hands. If they’re small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee.”

Elster, an employment lawyer and progressive activist, applied to register “Trump too small” with the trademark office in 2018.

It is a double entendre designed to suggest a secondary, often risque meaning corresponding to a small penis. 

The slogan was featured on the front of a T-shirt created by Elster with “Trump’s package is too small” on the back.

Steve Elster's political commentary and legal battle for 'Trump to small' trademark 

In paperwork filed during his attempted registration, Elster wrote that his mark was “political commentary about the smallness of Donald Trump’s overall approach to governing as president of the United States and the smallness of his approach to specific issues as president," according to CNN.

Despite the provided explanation, the trademark office denied his application, determining that the public would instantly link the word "Trump" with the former president, thereby necessitating Trump's written consent according to established law.

Elster took his case to court and won at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the restriction infringed upon his First Amendment right to free speech.

Nevertheless, the Justice Department appealed the decision to the Supreme Court which ultimately ruled in favor of the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Internet expressed outrage against Steve Elster for 'wasting' court's time

The Supreme Court's decision sparked reactions online with many criticizing the entire case as a waste of time.

One user on X commented, "Because they know that phrase is a crock."

Another wrote, "Trademarks are restrictions on speech. It's silly to suggest that denying a trademark violates the First Amendment."

"Such a waste of the court's time," was one comment, and "Why did they even take this case?" wrote another. 

Criticism also extended to Elster personally with comments such as, "This California lawyer, Steve Elster, apparently doesn't have enough work to do at his day job and must file nuisance suits because of Trump Derangement Syndrome."

"WTF is wrong with these loonies?" asked one. Some agreed with the decision, stating, "Rejecting the project is correct."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.