Listen to the article
The Trump Organization has filed federal trademark applications to secure exclusive rights to use the president’s name on airports and related merchandise, a move unprecedented in American history. The filings come amid legislative discussions in Florida about renaming Palm Beach International Airport after President Trump.
According to the company, the applications were prompted by the Florida bill rather than profit motives. In a statement, the Trump Organization emphasized that “the President and his family will not receive any royalty, licensing fee, or financial consideration whatsoever from the proposed airport renaming” at Palm Beach International Airport, located near Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club.
The company claims the trademark applications are intended as protection against “bad actors,” describing the Trump name as “the most infringed trademark in the world.” However, when asked whether they would charge royalties for using the name at other airports or on merchandise, the organization did not respond.
Trademark lawyer Josh Gerben, who discovered the filings over the weekend, highlighted their historic significance. “While presidents and public officials have had landmarks named in their honor, a sitting president’s private company has never in the history of the United States sought trademark rights in advance of such naming,” Gerben wrote on his blog.
The applications filed by DTTM Operations, a Trump family company unit, with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seek protection for three specific names: President Donald J. Trump International Airport, Donald J. Trump International Airport, and DJT. The filings cover not just the airport names themselves but dozens of related items found in airports, from shuttle buses to umbrellas, travel bags, and even flight suits.
Traditionally, airports named after presidents come years after they’ve left office or after their death. Bill Clinton waited 11 years after his presidency, Ronald Reagan nine years, and Gerald Ford 22 years. John F. Kennedy’s name was attached to New York’s international airport just one month after his assassination, making it the quickest such designation.
The airport naming push is part of a broader trend of organizations and public spaces being renamed for Trump in recent months. These include the Kennedy Center performing arts venue, a road outside Mar-a-Lago now called President Donald J. Trump Boulevard, and a planned new class of battleships.
The Trump Organization’s claim that its trademark is “the most infringed in the world” is difficult to verify. Luxury brands like Gucci, which has battled counterfeits since the early 1970s, Prada with its long history of litigation against copycat companies, and Rolex, which fights millions of fake watches annually, might contest such an assertion.
In the past year, the Trump family has expanded its branding efforts globally, placing the Trump name on towers, golf resorts, and residential developments in Dubai, India, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam. The company has also ventured into branded merchandise including electric guitars, bibles, and sneakers, all managed under the DTTM unit.
Critics have raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and profiteering from the presidency. In response, Trump has maintained that his business is held in trust by his sons and that he has no day-to-day involvement in the company’s operations.
The trademark filings emerge amid other Trump-naming controversies, including a funding dispute over a tunnel between New York and New Jersey that involves proposals to name both it and Virginia’s Dulles International Airport after the president.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
16 Comments
This is a concerning move that merits close examination. While protecting a brand is understandable, trademarking a president’s name for use on public facilities like airports crosses an ethical line. The public has a right to know if there are any plans to profit from this or if it’s purely about preventing misuse. Robust debate and oversight will be essential.
Interesting news. I’m curious to see how this plays out legally and politically. While presidents have had landmarks named after them before, actively trademarking the name for commercial purposes does seem like uncharted territory. There are valid concerns about conflicts of interest and abuse of power that will need to be addressed.
This raises a lot of questions about the appropriate use of a president’s name and brand. On one hand, the Trump Organization may want to prevent unauthorized or inappropriate use. But on the other, trademarking public infrastructure like airports seems problematic. I hope there is rigorous public debate and oversight on this issue.
This is a complex and ethically fraught issue. While the Trump Organization may have legitimate concerns about protecting their brand, trademarking a president’s name for use on public facilities like airports crosses an important line. The public deserves transparency on any plans to profit from this, and robust debate and oversight will be essential to ensure the public interest is protected.
This is an unusual and controversial move by the Trump Organization. While protecting a brand is understandable, trademarking a president’s name for use on public infrastructure like airports raises serious ethical and legal questions. The public deserves to know if there are any plans to profit from this or if it’s truly just about preventing misuse.
Interesting but troubling news. Trademarking a president’s name for use on public infrastructure sets a dangerous precedent. It blurs the line between the presidency and private business in an unacceptable way. The public deserves transparency on how the Trump Organization intends to use this trademark, and whether there are any plans to profit from it. Rigorous oversight will be crucial.
I agree completely. This is a concerning development that requires close scrutiny to ensure the public interest is protected, not private profit motives.
This is a concerning development that merits close scrutiny. The president’s name and brand should not be treated as private property to be exploited for commercial gain, especially when it comes to public assets like airports. I hope there is robust public debate and oversight to ensure the public interest is protected.
Well said. It’s crucial that any use of the president’s name on public facilities is done transparently and with the public good in mind, not private profit motives.
Interesting development, though potentially problematic. The president’s name is not a private commodity to be trademarked and monetized, especially when it comes to public assets like airports. This seems to blur the line between the presidency and private business in an unacceptable way. Rigorous public scrutiny will be essential.
I agree. The public interest must come before personal profit motives when it comes to the use of a president’s name. Transparency and oversight will be crucial here.
This seems like a concerning development. The president’s name and brand should not be used for private commercial gain, especially when it comes to public infrastructure like airports. The public interest should come before personal profit motives.
I agree. Trademarking a president’s name for use on public facilities sets a worrying precedent. It could open the door to other politicians trying to monetize their position and status.
This is an unusual move by the Trump Organization. I wonder if they are trying to profit off the president’s name or just protect it from misuse. It will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially if they start charging royalties for using the name on airports or merchandise.
You raise a good point. The company’s claim that this is just to prevent “bad actors” using the name seems questionable. Profiting off the presidency would be highly controversial.
Trademarks and intellectual property rights related to the presidency are a complex and sensitive issue. While the Trump Organization may have legitimate concerns about protecting the brand, this move seems heavy-handed and potentially self-serving. The public deserves transparency on how the president’s name is being used.