By Blake Brittain
WASHINGTON, Nov 9 (Reuters) – The US Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear a challenge by Roberto Clemente’s sons to Puerto Rico’s use of the baseball great’s image on commemorative license plates and vehicle registration tags, which they alleged violates constitutional protections against government taking of trademark rights.
The justices turned away an appeal made by the three sons after lower courts rejected their claims against the Caribbean US territory.
Clemente, a Puerto Rico native, played for Major League Baseball’s Pittsburgh Pirates for 18 seasons from 1955 to 1972. He was a 15-time All-Star right fielder and two-time World Series champion in a career that earned him induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame and a statue outside the team’s stadium. He died at age 38 in a 1972 airplane crash while delivering humanitarian aid to earthquake victims in Nicaragua.
The lawsuit was filed against Puerto Rico’s government by Roberto Clemente Jr, Luis Roberto Clemente and Roberto Enrique Clemente and two companies they own that they said protect the Roberto Clemente trademark, safeguard his legacy and promote his philanthropy.
The suit, which claimed the use of the likeness generated $15 million for Puerto Rico, seeks to block any use of their father’s likeness on license plates and tags and obtain $45 million in damages and $3.15 million in compensation for trademark infringement.
Puerto Rico in 2022 issued commemorative license plates and vehicle registration tags with Clemente’s image without the permission of his sons. The program stopped at the end of that year.
The sons sued in the territory’s federal court, alleging it appropriated his trademark rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution’s prohibition against government takings of private property.
San Juan-based US District Judge Gina Mendez-Miro dismissed the case, and the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals partially affirmed the dismissal, rejecting the claim by the sons that Puerto Rico’s use of the trademarks was an unconstitutional government taking.
In a filing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for the sons told the justices that the lower courts improperly concluded that the Fifth Amendment does not automatically apply to intangible property like trademarks, as opposed to tangible property like land.
“Left unanswered, the 1st Circuit’s ruling would invite government to take trademarks on demand — checked only by a multi-factor balancing test that allows government to destroy much in value and pay nothing in return,” they wrote.
Puerto Rico said in a filing that the Fifth Amendment argument overstates the breadth of the 1st Circuit’s decision. It said the 1st Circuit did not hold that intangible property is “categorically” excluded from automatic Fifth Amendment protection.
“Instead, the court resolved the issues presented by applying existing precedent to the facts of this case,” Puerto Rico said.
(Reporting by Blake Brittain in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)
