The backstory
Jaime Rogozinksi created WallStreetBets in 2012. He ran it for years, shaped its culture, grew the brand, and eventually registered the WallStreetBets trademark in 2020—before GameStop mania pushed the community into the global spotlight.
WallStreetBets had become one of Reddit’s most influential finance hubs. By early 2021, it was the center of the meme-stock frenzy, fueled in part by Keith Gill, also known as Roaring Kitty, who helped ignite the historic GameStop short squeeze.
As the subreddit’s popularity and brand value surged, Rogozinski began pursuing projects around it—a book, partnerships, and speaking opportunities. Reddit then removed him as moderator and claimed that it—not Jaime—owned the WallStreetBets identity because the community was initially built on its platform.
Lower courts agreed with Reddit, ruling that platforms have broad authority over communities and their branding. Rogozinksi argues this effectively lets platforms “seize” a creator’s brand retroactively, precisely what trademark law is supposed to prevent.
Reddit’s claim to ownership
Reddit argues that because WallStreetBets was created on its platform, using its tools, rules, and infrastructure, the company—not Jaime—has the stronger claim to the community’s identity.
In Reddit’s view, moderators are simply volunteers who help manage discussions but do not gain ownership rights, even if they were the ones who built the community in the first place.
Reddit points out that WallStreetBets grew entirely inside the Reddit ecosystem, and therefore, the platform effectively provided the environment where the name first existed and gained recognition.
This ties directly into trademark law’s first use in commerce principle. Normally, the person who uses a mark in commerce first is the rightful owner. But Reddit argues that it was the platform—not Jaime—that first enabled the mark to be used publicly, scaled, and monetized through user engagement.
Reddit also cites its broad authority under Section 230 to moderate and control user-generated content.
From Reddit’s perspective, allowing creators to trademark subreddit names would undermine the platform’s ability to manage its own ecosystem. And because WallStreetBets was born on Reddit, the company argues it should ultimately control the name and identity associated with it.
Rogozinski’s counterarguments
Rogozinski argues that Reddit’s position turns both trademark law and Section 230 on their head.
He created the WallStreetBets name, built the community from scratch, and registered the trademark in 2020. Reddit never objected until the brand became globally valuable.
In his view, Reddit is now trying to override trademark rights with platform policies, something the law was never designed to allow.
He also believes Reddit is stretching Section 230 far beyond its purpose. Section 230 protects platforms from being treated as publishers so they are not held liable for what users post.
But Rogozinski argues that Reddit wants to have it both ways: when content is risky or controversial, Reddit insists it is merely a neutral platform with no responsibility for what appears—yet when the brand becomes valuable, Reddit claims it owns that brand because it lives on its platform.
This represents a classic “have your cake and eat it too” approach. Section 230 was meant to encourage moderation and protect platforms from liability, not give them the power to seize a creator’s identity after the fact when it suits them.
What if Reddit prevails?
If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case—or hears it and ultimately sides with Reddit—the precedent could be sweeping. As platforms start to claim ownership over brands that their own users develop on their sites, that alone would shift significant leverage away from creators.
But the potential disruption goes further. If courts endorse Reddit’s position, other platforms may follow suit—asserting ownership over group names, channel identities, and creator brands that originated on their systems.
Companies like Facebook, X, YouTube, Discord, and TikTok could begin challenging creators who use their brand identities across multiple platforms, or even demand content be pulled from competitors.
The result could be genuine chaos: creators forced to rebrand, communities splintering, and long-established online identities suddenly subject to platform approval.
For millions of people building audiences online, the case raises a fundamental question: how secure is a brand if the platform can claim it at any time?
The road ahead
The legal battle is now entering its final phase. After losing in the lower courts, Rogozinski filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in November 2025, asking the justices to review the case.
The Court is expected to decide sometime in early 2026 whether it will hear the dispute—a pivotal moment that will determine whether the underlying legal questions get a national ruling or whether the lower court decisions remain in place.
Today, Rogozinski remains active in the retail-investing and digital-community world, but his focus has shifted toward advocacy, writing, and public commentary. He has published a book on the rise of retail traders and now speaks regularly about markets, crypto, platform governance, and creator rights.
Rogozinski told us he is motivated not just by his own case but by a desire to protect the next generation of online creators. We will continue to follow this important litigation closely and keep subscribers informed every step of the way.
