Professor Rebecca Curtin’s battle over the trademark RAPUNZEL did not have a fairy-tale ending. Professor Curtin, who teaches intellectual property law, had objected as a member of the public to federal registration of RAPUNZEL, arguing that it is in the public domain as the name of a fairy tale character and thus should not be registered for dolls depicting that character. The Supreme Court left in place a lower court’s ruling that Professor Curtin lacked “standing” to oppose the registration. “Standing” is, broadly speaking, the right to bring a claim based on the harm one has suffered due to the actions of another. This decision creates a controlling precedent: a party seeking to oppose a trademark registration must fall within the Lanham Act’s “zone of interests,” meaning that the opposer must allege a legitimate commercial interest harmed by the proposed registration. A general consumer interest in preserving the public domain is not enough to create standing.
Professor Curtin’s arguments were not reached on the merits of her claim. She wanted to argue that the name RAPUNZEL should remain freely available for all to use, particularly in connection with dolls and toy figures. But both the Trademark Office and the lower court concluded that because Curtin participated only as a consumer and not as a competitor or other commercial actor, she lacked standing to pursue the opposition.
The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear this case is not an endorsement of the registrability of RAPUNZEL. The applicant must still satisfy all requirements of the Lanham Act, and the Trademark Office must still determine whether the proposed mark is capable of functioning as a trademark and whether any other bars to registration apply.
What it does mean, however, is that ordinary consumers cannot challenge registration of a trademark solely to protect the public domain or on other policy grounds. Challengers must demonstrate that they have a real business stake, not just that they dislike the application or have a general claim that it will harm consumers. Whether public-domain character names such as “Rapunzel” should be registrable as trademarks remains an open question that may ultimately be decided in a future case brought by a party with a concrete commercial stake in the outcome.
For companies building a brand, there is a moral to this story. Challengers must have a commercial stake in the outcome.
The case is Rebecca Curtin v. United Trademark Holdings, Inc. 2023 WL 3271038 (May 4, 2023), 137 F.4th 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2025), cert. denied, 224 L. Ed. 2d 497 (Apr. 20, 2026).
To learn more about how this ruling may affect your rights and remedies, please contact the authors or any member of the Intellectual Property Group at McCarter & English, LLP.