By: Ryan Burgan
In early 2026, the White House social media accounts used two trademarks of the Pokémon Company in their posts: the iconic stylized Pokémon text that has been associated with the company since the 1990s and the stylized text for a new 2026 Pokémon game called Pokopia.[1] The first post was a TikTok video that used the classic Pokémon font when writing “Department of Homeland Security” about Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) recent activities.[2] The second post was an image on X that used the Pokopia font on an image stating “make america great again.”[3] The Pokémon Company International made a statement denying that it gave permission to the White House to post “social content” with imagery related to its brand.[4] The Pokémon Company has a reputation for being all-inclusive and family-friendly, but the White House’s actions could threaten that reputation.[5] The government waived sovereign immunity through the Lanham Act, so the Pokémon Company can bring a trademark action for dilution by tarnishment against the federal government.[6]
To protect the value of famous marks from being diminished, the Lanham Act gives trademark owners a cause of action to prevent the dilution of their marks by blurring or tarnishment.[7] Because the White House’s actions may harm the reputation of the mark rather than impair its distinctiveness, the Pokémon Company may pursue dilution by tarnishment.[8]
The standard for dilution by tarnishment is:
“[T]he owner of a famous mark that is distinctive . . . shall be entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.”[9]
The first factor asks whether the Pokémon trademarks used by the White House are famous marks as defined by the statute.[10] The statute lists some non-exclusive factors for fame, including 1) “[t]he duration, extent, and geographic reach of advertising and publicity of the mark . . . , 2) “[t]he amount, volume, and geographic extent of sales of goods or services offered under the mark,” 3) “[t]he extent of actual recognition of the mark,” and 4) “[w]hether the mark [is] on the principal register.”[11]
The classic Pokémon font will meet the fame factors because it has been used in the United States since the 1990s on products that generate millions of dollars, and it is known all over the country and the world.[12]While the overall Pokémon brand is famous, it is unlikely that courts will consider the brand-new sub-mark Pokopia to be famous.[13] The “make america great again” image that the White House posted on social media uses stylized text from Pokopia, which features different colors and font from the famous Pokémon mark.[14] The Pokopia mark was registered in October 2025, and consumers did not have access to the associated game until March 2026.[15] With the trademark registration and game release both being less than one year ago, the “brief” amount of time for consumers to become familiar with the mark cuts against an argument that the sub-mark is famous.[16]
The second factor—“use of a mark or trade name in commerce”—may be the hardest factor for the Pokémon Company to prove.[17] The term “use in commerce” is defined as “the bona fide use of a mark in the ordinary course of trade, and not made merely to reserve a right in a mark.”[18] For goods, an item is used in commerce when it is sold in the ordinary course of business.[19] For services, this means “when [a mark] is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce . . . .”[20] To the extent that social media posts can be considered goods or services, neither X nor TikTok allow political institutions to monetize their accounts.[21] This means the White House accounts cannot directly make money from their posts that use the Pokémon Company’s trademarks.[22] These posts also did not attempt to raise money for political purposes, which, in some cases, can be connected with goods or services.[23] Therefore, it is unlikely the second factor is met for either mark.
The third factor is use of the mark “at any time after the owner’s mark has become famous.”[24] Because the White House’s TikTok video used stylized Pokémon text that has been famous since the 1990s, this factor is met.[25] The X post with the Pokopia mark was made after both the registration of the mark and the release of the Pokopia game, so if a court decides that fame exists at either the registration of the mark or the release of the game, this factor is met.[26]
The fourth factor—use of the mark that is likely to harm the reputation of the famous mark—is shown by the differences in the reputation that the Pokémon Company has built and how the White House is using the trademarked material for both marks.[27] The Pokémon Company strives to maintain its family-friendly reputation, and it is marketed as entertainment for children.[28] The White House is using Pokémon trademarks in media about controversial political topics, including immigration and global conflict.[29] Wading into political waters is a risk for any brand’s bottom line, as recently shown by Bud Light’s 2023 ad campaign.[30] The Pokémon Company has attempted to insulate themselves from politics and potential financial loss by issuing a statement saying they are “not affiliated with any political viewpoint or agenda” in response to the White House’s actions.[31] Given the dissonance between controversial political topics and the Pokémon Company’s mission to provide family-friendly fun, it is likely the White House’s posts would harm the reputation of the famous Pokémon mark.
Despite the Pokémon Company’s desire for the White House not to use their marks, it is not likely that the social media posts met the statutory requirements to win a dilution by tarnishment claim.[32] It is not likely that the use of either mark met the second use in commerce factor.[33] The Pokopia mark does not have sufficient fame to meet the first factor.[34] Since all four factors must be met to win a lawsuit for dilution by tarnishment, it is not likely that the Pokémon Company will prevail against the government.[35]
[1] See The White House (@WhiteHouse), X (Mar. 5, 2026, at 09:34 ET), https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/2029566106650767581 [https://perma.cc/WNU5-QTTT] (using the new Pokémon spin-off game Pokopia with the slogan “make america great again”); Dalton Cooper, White House Shares Video of ICE Arrests Set to Pokemon Theme Song, GameRant (Sep. 23, 2025, at 01:00 ET), https://gamerant.com/white-house-ice-arrests-video-pokemon-theme-song-tiktok/ [https://perma.cc/FSD2-MGYF].
[2] Cooper, supra note 1.
[3] The White House (@WhiteHouse), supra note 1.
[4] Angela Yang, Pokémon Rebukes White House’s Use of Its IP in a Social Media Post, NBC (Mar. 6, 2026, at 00:49 ET), https://www.nbcnews.com/pop-culture/pop-culture-news/pokemon-rebukes-white-houses-use-ip-social-media-post-rcna262057 [https://perma.cc/3SK2-97C5].
[5] See Bringing the World Together Through Pokémon, Pokémon Co. Int’l, https://corporate.pokemon.com/en-us/ [https://perma.cc/EF8H-7WEG] (last visited Apr. 3, 2026).
[6] See 15 U.S.C. § 1122(a).
[7] Id.
[8] 15 U.S.C. §§ 1125(c)(2)(B), 1125(c)(2)(C).
[9] § 1125(c)(1).
[10] Id.
[11] § 1125(c)(2)(A)(i–iv).
[12] See Courtney Mifsud Intreglia, How Pokémon Conquered America, Time (Feb. 26, 2024, at 12:00 ET), https://time.com/6796536/history-origins-pokemon/ [https://perma.cc/JP6T-TNV7]; see also Jada Toys, Inc. v. Mattel, Inc., 518 F.3d 628, 635 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Here, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the HOT WHEELS mark is famous: it has been in use for over thirty-seven years; 350 million dollars have been expended in advertising the mark; three billion HOT WHEELS units have been sold since the inception of the mark; and HOT WHEELS are sold in all fifty states and throughout the world.”).
[13] See Green v. Fornario, 486 F.3d 100, 105 (3d Cir. 2007) (“[Fame] is a rigorous standard, as it extends protection only to highly distinctive marks that are well-known throughout the country.”).
[14] Compare The White House (@WhiteHouse), supra note 1 (demonstrating the “make america great again” image with stylization similar to that of the Pokopia mark), with U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 79439917 (filed Oct. 17, 2025), https://tsdr.uspto.gov/ – caseNumber= [https://perma.cc/75BF-MMEJ] (showing that the Pokémon Company filed a trademark registration for the Pokopia mark in October 2025).
[15] U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 79439917, supra note 14; Pokémon Pokopia, Launching on March 5, 2026, is Available for Preorder Now!, Pokémon Co. (Nov. 11, 2025), https://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-news/pokemon-pokopia-launching-on-march-5-2026-is-available-for-preorder-now [https://perma.cc/UK8Y-XX5F].
[16] See Green, 486 F.3d at 105 (calling a three-year baseball career “brief” in the context of the fame requirement and weighing that factor against the plaintiff).
[17] See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1).
[18] § 1127.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.
[21] X’s Creator Monetization Standards, X Help Center, https://help.x.com/en/rules-and-policies/content-monetization-standards (on file with the American University Business Law Review) (last visited Mar. 18, 2026); Government, Politician, and Political Party Accounts, TikTok Support, https://www.tiktok.com/support/faq_detail?id=7543896418532989445 [https://perma.cc/DXQ3-TSGW] (last visited Mar. 18, 2026).
[22] See The White House (@WhiteHouse), supra note 1; Cooper, supra note 1.
[23] Cf. Radiance Found., Inc. v. N.A.A.C.P., 786 F.3d 316, 326 (4th Cir. 2015) (“A solicitation [for political fundraising] may satisfy the ‘in connection with’ element if the trademark holder demonstrates a sufficient nexus between the unauthorized use of the protected mark and clear transactional activity.”).
[24] See 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1).
[25] Compare Intreglia, supra note 12 (explaining that Pokémon has been used in commerce since the 1990s), with Cooper, supra note 1 (showing the White House account used the Pokémon mark in the year 2025).
[26] See The White House (@WhiteHouse), supra note 1; U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 79439917, supra note 14; Pokémon Co., supra note 15; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1).
[27] See Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140, 161 (2023) (discussing how tarnishment can include less serious topics, such as a poop-themed joke that damages the reputation of Jack Daniels, because customers may associate the taste of their drinks with “less savory substances.”).
[28] See Bringing the World Together Through Pokémon, supra note 5.
[29] The White House (@WhiteHouse), supra note 1; Cooper, supra note 1.
[30] See Jura Liaukonyte, Anna Tuchman & Xinrong Zhu, Lessons from the Bud Light Boycott, One Year Later, Harv. Bus. Rev. (Mar. 20, 2024), https://hbr.org/2024/03/lessons-from-the-bud-light-boycott-one-year-later [https://perma.cc/Y6MM-MJ4P] (showing a few months after this ad campaign, sales for Bud Light were down by about 28% compared to the previous year); see also Alicia Park, Bud Light Boycott Effects Endure—Brand Drops to Third, Forbes (July 23, 2024, at 19:10 ET), https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciapark/2024/07/18/bud-light-boycott-effects-endure-brand-drops-to-third/ [https://perma.cc/RV42-EWUD] (stating the company ended up losing $1.4 billion in beer sales that year).
[31] Yang, supra note 4.
[32] See The White House (@WhiteHouse), supra note 1; Cooper, supra note 1; 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(1).
[33] § 1125(c)(1).
[34] Id.
[35] See id.
