Within days of Charlie Kirk’s tragic death on September 10, 2025, at Utah Valley University, something unsettling began to unfold. While the nation processed the shocking loss and his family grieved, multiple individuals rushed to file trademark applications attempting to claim exclusive rights to phrases connected to Kirk’s death and legacy.
The speed was breathtaking. Just five days after Kirk’s death, someone filed documents seeking to trademark “Charlie Kirk’s Life Matters” for use on various clothing items including shirts, jackets, shorts, and accessories. Shortly afterward, another application was submitted by a different person seeking similar rights for clothing and baby apparel. Additional applications quickly followed, including one for “Live Like Charlie” filed just one day after Kirk’s death, and “Turning Point USA Constitutional Churches of America.“
These filings represent a disturbing trend of commercial opportunism that emerges in the wake of public tragedies. They raise important questions about trademark law, ethical commerce, and how we protect deceased public figures’ names and legacies from exploitation.
The Legal Shield: How Names Are Protected
The legal framework governing personal names in trademarks provides multiple layers of protection, particularly for public figures. These protections actually become more complex—and often more robust—when the individual is deceased.
For living individuals, trademark law establishes a clear standard: people have fundamental rights to privacy and control over how their names, likenesses, and identities are used commercially. Any trademark incorporating a living person’s name requires that individual’s written consent. The USPTO consistently refuses registration when applicants cannot provide such consent from identifiable living persons. Understanding these trademark registration requirements is crucial for anyone considering filing applications involving personal names.
This protection extends beyond famous individuals to any person whose name might be recognizable in connection with particular goods or services. Whether it’s a full name, nickname, or even distinctive signature, the law requires explicit permission before commercial exploitation through trademark registration.
When someone dies, the trademark landscape shifts but doesn’t become a free-for-all. Multiple legal doctrines work together to prevent unauthorized commercial exploitation of deceased individuals’ names and personas.
The State-by-State Patchwork of Protection
One of the most significant barriers facing these opportunistic trademark applications involves right of publicity laws. These vary dramatically across states but provide substantial protection for deceased public figures.
Approximately half of US states have enacted statutes providing post-mortem right of publicity protection. The duration and scope differ significantly, creating what legal scholars call a “patchwork” of protection across the country.
California offers 70 years of protection, with retroactive application to anyone who died on or after January 1, 1915. New York provides 40 years of protection for deceased performers and personalities. Indiana and Oklahoma extend protection up to 100 years. Tennessee offers indefinite protection as long as the estate continues exploitation. Washington provides 10 years for ordinary individuals, extending to 75 years for those with commercial value.
The commercial value of these rights can be enormous. Since Michael Jackson’s death in 2009, his estate has generated over $2 billion through licensing his image, likeness, and music. This demonstrates both the significant economic interests at stake and the importance of legal protection for estates and families.
Why These Applications Will Likely Crash and Burn
Each trademark application mentioning Charlie Kirk will undergo review by USPTO examining attorneys, though this process typically takes about seven months for initial review. These applications face multiple grounds for rejection.
Applications using Kirk’s full name or his organization “Turning Point USA” create clear grounds for rejection based on false suggestion of connection. The USPTO routinely denies trademarks that would misleadingly imply association with known public figures or organizations. The timing and nature of these applications demonstrate their opportunistic character—filed immediately after Kirk’s death by individuals with no apparent connection to him or his work.
Charlie Kirk’s widow, Erika, who announced at his memorial service that she would be taking over as CEO of Turning Point USA, and his estate possess the legal standing to oppose these trademark applications during the opposition period. This provides another layer of protection against unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Learning from Marilyn Monroe’s Legal Legacy
The complexities of posthumous name protection are perfectly illustrated by landmark litigation involving Marilyn Monroe’s estate, which established important principles that apply to current opportunistic filings.
In Shaw Family Archives Ltd. v. CMG Worldwide, Inc., decided in 2007, the court ruled that Marilyn Monroe’s estate could not claim posthumous right of publicity because she died in 1962, before either New York or California recognized such rights. The court held that individuals cannot transfer through their wills property rights that did not exist under applicable law at the time of their death.
California responded to this ruling by enacting legislation creating descendible publicity rights lasting 70 years after death, applied retroactively to anyone deceased after January 1, 1915. This legislative action demonstrated the policy importance of protecting deceased individuals from commercial exploitation and provided a model for other states.
The Digital Age Feeding Frenzy
The Charlie Kirk trademark filings exemplify a recurring pattern that emerges after high-profile deaths, revealing concerning aspects of modern commerce and digital marketplaces.
Modern technology enables instantaneous opportunism. Online trademark filing systems allow individuals to submit applications within hours of learning about a death, as demonstrated by the “Live Like Charlie” application filed just one day after Kirk’s assassination. Platforms like Amazon, Etsy, and similar services make it easier than ever to quickly produce and distribute merchandise. These trademark applications often represent attempts to establish exclusive rights for rapid commercialization of memorial-related products.
Perhaps most troubling is how these applications treat human tragedy and collective grief as business opportunities. Memorial phrases and tributes become potential revenue streams for strangers with no connection to the deceased or their families.
Estate Planning in the Spotlight Era
The Charlie Kirk situation offers valuable lessons for anyone with public recognition who wants to protect their legacy and family from posthumous exploitation.
Estate planning should specifically address post-mortem right of publicity, particularly when heirs or beneficiaries might profit from the deceased person’s persona or likeness. Many celebrities create specialized trusts to hold these rights, allowing designated individuals to continue managing commercial exploitation for beneficiaries’ benefit.
Without specific provisions, name and likeness rights typically pass through residuary clauses in wills or trusts. For individuals dying intestate, these rights pass to statutory heirs. Clear testamentary language can prevent disputes and ensure proper management of these valuable assets.
Fixing a Broken System
The recurring nature of opportunistic trademark filings after public deaths suggests the need for systematic legal reforms to better protect families during vulnerable periods.
The USPTO could implement fast-track examination procedures for applications filed shortly after public figures’ deaths, similar to existing expedited prosecution programs for certain application categories. Requiring applicants to demonstrate legitimate interests or connections to deceased individuals could deter purely opportunistic filings while preserving legitimate trademark rights.
Implementing mandatory waiting periods following prominent deaths, similar to probate procedures, could provide families with breathing room to address legal matters without immediate commercial pressure.
The Inevitable Outcome
Despite the initial flood of applications, legal precedent and existing protections make success unlikely for the opportunistic Charlie Kirk trademark filings. The combination of federal trademark law, state right of publicity statutes, and estate rights creates multiple barriers to registration.
Applicants will likely face USPTO rejections, potential opposition proceedings from Kirk’s estate, and possible litigation over right of publicity violations. The legal costs and uncertainty associated with these challenges typically exceed any potential commercial benefits from such opportunistic ventures.
Where Commerce Meets Human Dignity
The rush to trademark Charlie Kirk’s name and related phrases represents more than simple commercial opportunism—it reflects broader cultural tensions between entrepreneurial capitalism and human dignity. While legal mechanisms provide substantial protection against exploitative trademark applications, the mere filing of such applications during families’ darkest moments reveals troubling aspects of modern commercial culture.
The case demonstrates how existing legal frameworks—trademark law, right of publicity statutes, and estate protections—work together to shield deceased public figures from commercial exploitation. However, the emotional and administrative burden placed on grieving families to defend against such applications suggests the need for both legal reforms and cultural change.
As digital marketplaces make rapid commercialization increasingly feasible, society must balance entrepreneurial freedom with respect for human dignity. The legal fortress protecting Charlie Kirk’s legacy will likely hold against these particular applications, but the broader challenge involves creating cultural norms that discourage such opportunism in the first place.
The law provides the tools to protect the dead from commercial vultures, but lasting solutions require fostering a culture that recognizes some things should remain beyond the reach of commerce, particularly during society’s most vulnerable and grief-stricken moments.
This analysis reflects publicly available information as of the publication date and should not be considered legal advice for specific situations. Trademark applications remain subject to USPTO examination and potential opposition proceedings.
[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]
