In a significant legal battle that made its way to the Supreme Court, the trademark application for "TRUMP TOO SMALL" may be denied. The case, which dates back to the 2016 presidential primary debates, revolves around Sen. Marco Rubio's mocking of Donald Trump's hand size, igniting a national conversation.

The applicant, Steve Elster, a part-time Democratic activist, sought to trademark the phrase for use on T-shirts. However, the Patent and Trademark office rejected the application, citing federal laws that prohibit the registration of a living person's name without their consent. Although Elster or anyone else can still utilize the phrase without a trademark, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the denial infringed on Elster's free speech rights.

Nevertheless, during the Supreme Court proceedings on Wednesday, justices appeared unsympathetic to Elster's argument. Justice Sonia Sotomayor contended that the denial was not a violation of free speech, asserting that Elster can freely sell as many shirts with the phrase as he wishes. Justice Clarence Thomas echoed this sentiment, reiterating that Elster can still produce and market merchandise featuring the emblem "Trump Too Small" without a trademark.

Elster's lawyer, Jonathan Taylor, argued that denying the trademark restricts his client from accessing "important rights and benefits" available to all trademark holders who pay the registration fee. The denial, Taylor claimed, was solely based on the expression of a message about a public figure.

In response, Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the government can provide benefits to some but not others as long as it is not viewpoint-based. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that content restrictions on trademarks have always existed, with Kavanaugh noting that congressional restrictions aim to prevent the commercial appropriation of someone else's name. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson further clarified that trademarks are primarily concerned with source identification and consumer protection rather than the First Amendment.

Chief Justice John Roberts raised the issue of the trademark's purpose: to prevent others from using the same slogan. Lawyer Taylor suggested that if this were a concern, Congress has the power to address it, though he did not present a specific solution.

Overall, Wednesday's arguments indicated a consensus among Supreme Court Justices that denying the trademark in question does not violate free speech rights and aligns with the purpose of trademarks - source identification and consumer protection. As the case concludes, it remains to be seen how this ruling will impact the future of trademark applications related to public figures.

In the end, the Supreme Court seems united on certain aspects, confirming that there are limits to trademark protections, even when it comes to controversial figures like Donald Trump.