For more than 50 years, the Clemente family has used the Roberto Clemente trademark to preserve his legacy. The Clementes license the trademark sparingly, using it for causes like the Clemente Museum in Pittsburgh and the Roberto Clemente Foundation, which honor the life he built.

Puerto Rico wanted to capitalize on his brand. In 2022, the commonwealth forced cash-strapped Puerto Ricans to pay for commemorative license plates with Clemente’s name and image, despite the family’s objections. The government pocketed roughly $15 million from the trademark and paid the Clementes nothing. Worse, angry Puerto Ricans blamed the family for the new fee—even though the Clementes had opposed it from the start.
. . .
The Constitution’s Takings Clause says the government must pay “just compensation” when it takes private property. The rule has long been simple: The government must pay for what it takes.

This should have been an easy case based on that principle. Puerto Rico must pay because it took the Roberto Clemente trademark for its own use. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit ruled for Puerto Rico earlier this year by drawing an artificial line. The court held that the simple pay-for-what-you-take rule protects only tangible property such as land, cars, and crops. Intangible property like trademarks, trade secrets, and patents, the court said, doesn’t deserve the same protection.  

That distinction makes no sense. The plain text of the Takings Clause itself prohibits the government from taking “private property” for public use without just compensation. As the Supreme Court has recognized in Horne v. Department of Agriculture in 2015, the Constitution protects private property “without any distinction between different types.” … Read More

(via Reason)