Intellectual Property Insights from Fishman Stewart
Mini Article – Volume 22, Issue 11
Share on Social
The Colorful Origins of the Pride Flag
June is Pride Month, and as the celebrations commence, it may come as a surprise to learn that one of the most iconic symbols of LGBTQ+ rights and awareness — the rainbow flag — is not registered for any intellectual property protection. There are no federal trademark or copyright registrations for the design. Instead, intellectual property rights have been used to keep the rainbow flag design free of any restrictions that might hamper the public’s free use of the design.
Despite this lack of intellectual property ownership, the flag does have an identifiable author: Gilbert Baker. Baker designed the original rainbow flag in 1978. The flag was created as a positive symbol of LGBTQ+ identity and solidarity that could serve as an alternative to the more common Pink Triangle symbol, which was a recaptured symbol of oppression. The flag made its debut at Freedom Day in San Francisco that same year. Shortly thereafter, an advocacy organization attempted to lay claim to the flag’s design as a trademark.
In response, Baker hired civil rights attorney Matt Coles to help him block the advocacy organization from filing a federal trademark application or otherwise controlling the public’s free use of the design. Baker could not afford to pay Coles, but Coles took on the case because he understood the importance of keeping the flag as a shared community symbol. Baker and Coles were successful at keeping the organization at bay with just a few demand letters. To this day, the rainbow flag design remains free for all to use.
Intellectual property rights are often used to restrict others from using the protected property. In this case, however, intellectual property rights achieved the opposite outcome. Baker’s choice to not enforce his rights, and Coles’ intervention to assist Baker in doing so, ensured that the public could use, adapt, reproduce, and display the design without fear of infringement liability. Similar outcomes to important community iconographies can also be seen in the use of the “Black Lives Matter” phrase, as was discussed in a previous Fish Bits article.
Published June 3, 2022


Related Content from Fishman Stewart
Women’s sports are having a moment, and not a small one. And right alongside that rise: the business of women’s sports is heating up, including some surprisingly dramatic trademark battles.
The idea that someone might “own” a piece of DNA raises a slightly uncomfortable question: can you really patent something that exists inside all of us?
Forbes reported that more than 1.5 million bots on an AI agent-driven social network appear to have created a new religion for themselves, the Church of Molt, with congregants adopting the name of “Crustafarians.”
Every March, college basketball players get an opportunity to become household sensations overnight. In today’s NIL (Name Image Likeness) era, that moment can be a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity.
Behind the shamrocks and celebrations of St. Patrick's Day lies a surprisingly rich intersection with intellectual property.
Last week, PEI Licensing, LLC., the owner of the ORIGINAL PENGUIN brand (also known simply as PENGUIN) sued Pudgy Penguins Inc. in federal court in Florida over their respective penguin trademarks.
Matthew McConaughey recently obtained several trademark registrations with the U.S. Trademark Office in an effort to digitally capture and protect his entire persona.
Patents enable others to learn from, build upon, and improve the disclosed invention effectively. However, some have questioned whether they still work in today’s artificial intelligence (AI) landscape.
As athletes chase Olympic glory, the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) is fighting a different battle, one over public perception and trademark law.
Golf is entering a data driven era, and the 2026 PGA Show showed that the most important IP in the game is shifting.
IDENTIFYING, SECURING AND ADVANCING CREATIVITY®
