Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Trademarking a Name and the Right of Publicity

By Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard on November 19, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Suppose that you want to register a trademark that incorporates a name of a person to identify the source of goods or services for your business.  Should you register your trademark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)?  What about the right of publicity of the individual?  Can you obtain a registration from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office?  The answer may be YES! depending on the specific facts regarding the person.

Section 2(c) of the Trademark Act (15 U.S.C. § 1052) states in part:

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(c)  Consists 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…

Section 1206 of the Trademark Manuel Examining Procedure (TMEP) incorporates Section 2(c) or 15 U.S.C. § 1052. Without written consent, the USPTO will bar the registration of these marks under Section 2(c) on either the Principal Register or the Supplemental Register. See 15 U.S.C. §§1052(c),  1052(f), 1091(a).  However, Section 2(c) does not apply to marks that identify deceased persons, except for a deceased president of the United States during the life of the president’s widow. See 15 U.S.C.  §1052(c).

Suppose the person is a living individual.  The next question is whether their written consent is required. Section 813.01(a) of the TMEP states:

When a name, portrait, or signature in a mark identifies a particular living individual, or a deceased president of the United States during the life of his widow, the mark can be registered only with the written consent of the individual, or of the president’s widow, respectively.  The requirement for consent also applies to the registration of a pseudonym, stage name, or nickname, if there is evidence that the name identifies a specific living individual who is publicly connected with the goods or services, is generally known, or is well known in the field relating to the relevant goods or services.

If your mark includes a name, portrait, and/or signature that could reasonably be perceived as that of a particular living individual, then you must provide the USPTO information regarding whether such name, portrait and/or signature in fact identifies a particular living person. If it does, you must provide both (1) a statement that the name, portrait, and/or signature identifies a living individual whose consent is of record, and (2) a written consent personally signed by the individual named or shown in the mark.

An individual’s right of publicity allows the person to control the commercial use of his or her identity.  There is no federally protected right of publicity.  The protected right of publicity is a state right and each state has created its own protected right of publicity.  Therefore, the USPTO requires written consent from a living person whose name is in a mark prior to registration to protect the person’s right of publicity.

Can a deceased person have a right of publicity?  While most states are fairly consistent in their protected right of publicity as it applies to living individuals, each state varies as to the level of protection for a postmortem right of publicity.  Some states allow the right to extend beyond death, while others do not.  The postmortem right of publicity may be provided explicitly in a statute or only under common law.  Even is a state allows the right of publicity to extend beyond death such right may be limited in time.

Since trademarks can contain a person’s name with their consent, you should file an application to register the trademark as soon as possible.  You should be able to have the trademark application examined and obtain a registration.  However, if the person is deceased, you may want to consider whether they have a postmortem right of publicity before you file, which will depend on state law.  If the postmortem right of publicity does not apply, no consent is needed from the estate of the deceased person.  However, if the postmortem right of publicity does apply, you should seek consent from the estate of the deceased person before filing for trademark registration.  Although the consent of a deceased person is not required to file a trademark application, you want to minimize any liability for any postmortem right that may apply.

Thus, a name of a person can be trademarked with the USPTO if they are a living individual whose written consent is made of record or if the person is deceased.  In addition, you may be able to trademark the name of a deceased person with the USPTO.  However, the deceased person may have a postmortem right of publicity.  If the state law does not apply or enough time has elapsed, you may not have liability if you attempt to register their name for a trademark with the USPTO.

Photo of Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & Howard
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical,
…
Mr. Bliss manages all phases of intellectual property litigation, including case preparation, analysis, and execution. He works with multinational corporations and consortiums in obtaining, managing, evaluating, and licensing intellectual property. His scope of expertise spans a wide range of technology including mechanical, electrical, chemical, materials, computer software, and business methods.
Mr. Bliss also focuses on trademark rights. He has experiencemanaging a number of international trademark portfolios and excels in trademark management, protection and prosecution strategies. He has extensive experience in preparing trademark opinions and prosecuting trademark applications in the U.S. He has also handled oppositions and cancellations of trademark applications and registrations in the U.S. Mr. Bliss has international trademark experience and counsels clients on the advantages and disadvantages of foreign registration and on the selection of foreign counsel. He works with foreign counsel regarding search results, prosecuting trademark applications, potential disputes, and all registration matters, ensuring the enforcement of trademark rights after registration.
Mr. Bliss served as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure on several occasions. He testified as an expert on patent law and patent office procedure at trial in connection with Sundance, Inc. and Merlot Tarpaulin & SideKit Mfg. Co., Inc. v. DeMonte Fabricating Ltd. and Quick Draw Tarpaulin Systems, Inc. and Walter DeMonte, Civil Action No. 02-73543, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. He also has experience appearing before the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other various federal courts throughout the United States.
Mr. Bliss prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for an automotive original equipment manufacturer for an electronically-controlled automatic transmission. One of these patent applications produced the patent that won invention of the year in 1990 by the Intellectual Property Organization. He also managed a team of attorneys that prepared and filed over 50 patent applications for a hybrid vehicle for an automotive original equipment manufacturer. Under his leadership, the team obtained the disclosures from a contract supplier, drafted the patent applications and then filed them all on the same day.
Mr. Bliss is a Past President for the Michigan Intellectual Patent Law Association, Past Chair for the Intellectual Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, Past President for Michigan State College of Law Alumni Association, and Past Secretary and Treasurer for the Michigan Technological University Alumni Association. He has served as a director on various boards including corporations, associations, and non-profits.
Mr. Bliss is admitted to practice in Michigan, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He is also admitted to practice before the Eastern and Western Districts for the State of Michigan, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court.
For two decades, Mr. Bliss, along with his partner, Gerald E. McGlynn, III, and their associates, have served the global intellectual property community from their firm, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. In July 2013, Bliss McGlynn, P.C. joined the firm of Howard & Howard.
**Not Licensed or Admitted to Practice Law in the State of Nevada
Read more about Daniel H. Bliss of Howard & HowardEmailDaniel's Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    ILN IP Insider
  • Organization:
    International Lawyers Network
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo