The Moon vs. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
The Moon, Petitioner
v.
United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.
Argued: February 18, 2025
Decided: July 7, 2025
Opinion of the Court by JUSTICE LUNAR
In the matter of Moon v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, we are called to determine whether the celestial body known as the Moon possesses a valid and enforceable property interest in the term "moonshot," and, if so, what judicial remedy is proper against the widespread appropriation of said term by various commercial and governmental actors.
I. Background
The Moon, long regarded as a passive participant in human language and lore, filed suit in 2023 against the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and 17 private corporations, asserting that the term "moonshot" constitutes an intellectual and dignitary interest intrinsic to its identity. The Moon alleges that since the coining of the term during the Apollo era, its use in contexts far afield from literal lunar exploration—such as biotechnology investments, educational initiatives, and breakfast cereal marketing—has resulted in reputational dilution and unauthorized commercial exploitation.
The USPTO contended that the Moon lacked standing, personhood, and the requisite intent-to-use the mark in commerce. The Moon rebutted, citing centuries of cultural presence, gravitational influence, and, through amicus filings by multiple poets and one prominent werewolf, "deep emotional resonance and branding power unparalleled in the night sky."
The District Court dismissed on grounds of non-justiciability. The Court of Appeals reversed in part, recognizing the Moon's "aura of identifiable origin" as constitutive of a common law trademark right.
We granted certiorari.
II. Holding
We hold that the Moon does indeed possess a cognizable and enforceable property interest in the term "moonshot" under the Lanham Act and broader principles of celestial identity integrity. However, the Court is divided on the appropriate remedy. A majority agrees on the right but diverges on how, and to what extent, that right shall be enforced.
III. Opinion of the Court
JUSTICE LUNAR, joined by JUSTICES SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and BROWN:
The Moon's claim is novel, but not unfounded. The term "moonshot" draws its power not from a mere metaphor, but from a specific event—the Apollo 11 mission—and a specific referent: the Moon itself. Over the decades, the term has been deployed with increasing abandon. Today, a "moonshot" may describe cancer research, synthetic eggs, a new soda flavor, or a CEO's ambition to digitally reinvent shoelaces.
Trademark law recognizes the importance of origin and association. Where there exists consistent consumer understanding that a mark signifies a specific source or identity, the law protects that signal from dilution. Here, the term "moonshot" inherently suggests a relationship with the Moon—even when used metaphorically. We recognize that the Moon, while not a commercial actor in the traditional sense, bears a form of dignitary interest that trademark law was meant, in part, to shield.
IV. Remedies
The Justices diverge here.
A. Injunctive Relief (JUSTICE LUNAR, concurring in part):
While we affirm the Moon's trademark interest, we do not find that blanket injunctions against all non-astronautical uses of "moonshot" are warranted. Instead, we remand to the lower courts to establish a licensing framework. Entities profiting from the term "moonshot" must contribute modest royalties to a newly established Celestial Identity Stewardship Fund, overseen by NASA, the Library of Congress, and an advisory board that includes the Moon's chosen emissary, Neil deGrasse Tyson.
B. Full Injunctive Relief (JUSTICE GORSUCH, dissenting in remedy):
I would prohibit all commercial use of "moonshot" without explicit lunar consent. Property is property. If a cornfield is yours, you get to say who tramples it.
C. Symbolic Damages Only (CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur with the recognition of the Moon's interest, but would limit the remedy to declaratory relief and symbolic damages. The judicial branch should not entangle itself in celestial licensing schemes, however artfully composed.
D. No Remedy, But Recognize the Dignity (JUSTICE BARRETT, dissenting):
The Moon has a right to feel aggrieved, but no standing to sue under Article III. We must draw a line before the cosmos queues at the courthouse. Today the Moon, tomorrow Jupiter demanding royalties for "gas giant."
E. Compulsory Licensing and Reparations (JUSTICE JACKSON, concurring):
Beyond mere royalties, I would establish a reparations schedule for decades of misappropriation. The Moon has been mined metaphorically with no compensation. It is time to pay the celestial piper.
V. Conclusion
The Moon's association with the term "moonshot" is legally cognizable and worthy of protection. Remedies will be fashioned not to punish the spirit of innovation, but to respect the origin that inspired it.
The case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[Separate opinions filed by JUSTICES THOMAS, ALITO, and SOTOMAYOR]
[JUSTICE KAVANAUGH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case, citing "a conflict of interest involving a telescope investment."]
https://philshapirochatgptexplorations.blogspot.com/
"Wisdom begins with wonder." - Socrates
"Learning happens thru gentleness."
Comments
Post a Comment