Skip to content
  • Home
  • Gavin McInnes v. SPLC
  • Solas v. Town of South Kingstown
  • Contact
  • More
    • Disney v DeSantis decision
    • Carson Griffith vs. The Daily Beast
    • Corporate Censorship in Social Media and a Role for the States
    • Opposition brief of Gavin McInnes to motion to dismiss by SPLC
    • Pardon Ari Teman – My letter to the President
    • I’m high-ranked and I know it
    • My September 11th
    • The Endless Summer: Student Lawyer magazine, March 1989
    • Asymmetric Cultural Warfare
    • The Fashion Law blogger disclosures
    • S & L Vitamins / Sagarin v. Australian Gold / Designer Skin
    • Ronald D. Coleman | Litigation Lawyer
    • BOBOV trademark protest letter
    • Blawg Review #2 (April 17, 2005)
    • Ron Coleman panel presentations — Last 10 as of July 14, 2017
  • Standards for likelihood of confusion
    • Likelihood of confusion in the Third Circuit
    • Likelihood of confusion: 2d Circuit
    • Likelihood of confusion in the Federal Circuit
  • Publications
    • Play-Doh’s trademark registration passes the smell test
    • Statutory damages in copyright cases
    • Social Media and Proving Secondary Meaning
    • Bully for Who? How trademark bullying works
    • Motions to Dismiss the Complaint
    • Bloggers, Journalists, Reporting and Privilege
    • Slants, Redskins and other “Disparaging” Trademarks
    • New York’s Declaratory Judgment Insurance Trap
    • Trademark, Copyright, and the Internet: Time to Return Balance to Civil Litigation
    • Hands off blogs: Mandatory disclosure of “blogola”?
    • Policy and Constitutional Problems with Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act
    • “Initial Interest Confusion”: Compounding the Error
    • Prudential Standing: Who is ‘Any Person’ Under the Lanham Act?
    • When Young Lawyers Meet Ancient Law
    • Managing Risk: Litigation Prophylaxis in High-Tech Agreements
    • Hacker with a White Hat
    • Depositions and Wrongful Profits in Infringement Cases: Cornering Your Prey with Rule 30(b)(6)
    • A Theory of Trademarks in the Blog Era
    • Court Nixes Fees for Fact Witnesses
    • Copycats on the Superhighway
    • Civil Disclosures (ABA Journal)
  • Privacy Policy
  • Video

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

Lawyer Ron Coleman on brands, the Internet & free speech

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

Lawyer Ron Coleman on brands, the Internet & free speech

  • Home
  • Video
  • Publications
    • Play-Doh’s trademark registration passes the smell test
    • Social Media and Proving Secondary Meaning
    • Slants, Redskins and other “Disparaging” Trademarks
    • Bully for Who? How trademark bullying works
    • Copycats on the Superhighway
    • Prudential Standing: Who is ‘Any Person’ Under the Lanham Act?
    • Hacker with a White Hat
    • Trademark, Copyright, and the Internet: Time to Return Balance to Civil Litigation
    • Hands off blogs: Mandatory disclosure of “blogola”?
    • Bloggers, Journalists, Reporting and Privilege
    • “Initial Interest Confusion”: Compounding the Error
  • More
    • Privacy Policy
    • Opposition brief of Gavin McInnes to motion to dismiss by SPLC
    • Disney v DeSantis decision
    • Statutory damages in copyright cases
    • A Theory of Trademarks in the Blog Era
    • Managing Risk: Litigation Prophylaxis in High-Tech Agreements
    • I’m high-ranked and I know it
    • The Endless Summer: Student Lawyer magazine, March 1989
    • Asymmetric Cultural Warfare
    • Blawg Review #2 (April 17, 2005)
    • Copycats on the Superhighway
    • The Endless Summer: Student Lawyer magazine, March 1989
  • Motions to Dismiss
  • Bio and Contact
    • Home
    • Trademarks and trademark law
    • Section 2(a)
Free Expression Section 2(a)

Ten years later…

Ron Coleman Aug 23, 2026 0 Comments

… and they’ve already forgotten!

Section 2(a)

Thanks for listening, Ecuador!

Ron Coleman Jul 29, 2021 0 Comments

That’s it. That’s the post.

Section 2(a)

Not sweet enough

Ron Coleman Jun 17, 2020 5 Comments

Surprising, really, that it took this long: “We recognize Aunt Jemima’s origins are based on a racial stereotype.” Aunt Jemima character and brand name being removed from all products. https://t.co/Gv0L73sntc…

Section 2(a)

More singularity: Still, er, screwed

Ron Coleman Mar 13, 2020 0 Comments

I thought I covered all the things, all of them!, about trademarks these days in my recent “Trademark Singularity” Part One and Part Two posts — from functioning as a…

Section 2(a)

Burying 2(a) at the CIPLA

Ron Coleman Nov 18, 2019 0 Comments

Matal v. Tam was highly influential in the subsequent Supreme Court case Iancu v. Brunetti, which also overturned the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting the registration of “immoral” and…

Section 2(a)

Immoral, scandalous and obsolete

Ron Coleman Jan 8, 2019 0 Comments

"Trademarks" today are foisted on everyone, everywhere, all the time

Section 2(a)

Cigar-store repentance

Ron Coleman Oct 18, 2018 0 Comments

< No one reading @likely2confuse in those days — it was a brand-new blog — and I did not anticipate that some day maybe a lot of people would, so…

Section 2(a)

Formerly live, still video

Ron Coleman Jun 29, 2017 0 Comments

Check out my boys John Connell and Joel MacMull on a “live” (well, it was live; now it’s un-alive) Facebook video talking about some darned case and answering your darned…

Section 2(a)

The Slants: Denouement

Ron Coleman Jun 20, 2017 0 Comments

Victory has a hundred fathers https://t.co/G9Z7QOVH8l — Likelihood ®© Blog (@likely2confuse) June 19, 2017 Now let’s name some of them. Because while I have many thoughts and learned many things…

Section 2(a)

Après Tam, le déluge? Nah.

Ron Coleman May 12, 2017 3 Comments

I was speaking to a thoughtful, insightful person last night who asked me, “What if Simon Tam wins in Lee v. Tam and Section 2(a)’s disparagement bar is struck down,…

Section 2(a)

“Rock ‘n Roll, Redskins & Free Speech”

Ron Coleman Feb 21, 2017 0 Comments

I have tried not to overload the blog with media coverage about our Supreme Court case involving THE SLANTS, but this is pretty ginchy:

Section 2(a)

It’s not a popularity contest (updated)

Ron Coleman Dec 25, 2016 0 Comments

And the “popular vote” most certainly counts for nothing. Having said that, here’s the raw tally of amicus merits briefs — pro-, con- and meh- — in Lee v. Tam,…

Section 2(a)

A basket of Lee v. Tam briefs

Ron Coleman Dec 16, 2016 0 Comments

I was going to do a post collecting all the briefs filed in the United States Supreme Court in Lee v. Tam (“THE SLANTS”), but thanks to a nice blog…

Section 2(a)

Lee v. Tam (“The SLANTS Case”): Brief for Respondent Simon Shiao Tam

Ron Coleman Dec 9, 2016 1 Comments

Filed today.

Posts pagination

1 2 … 5

Next Page »

The question of whether consumers are likely to be confused is the signal inquiry that determines if a trademark infringement claim is valid. I write here about trademark law, copyright law, brands, free speech (mostly as it relates to the Internet and social media). That may sound like a lot, but it's just a blog.

This is attorney advertising. Lawyer Ronald D. Coleman is admitted to practice in New York and New Jersey.

For more information click here.

You Missed

Free Expression Section 2(a)

Ten years later…

Everything else

How to Escape the Clutches of Someone with Narcissism

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®

New video series: Law Learnin’ Wednesdays

Use as a Trademark

Trademark: “From The River to the Sea”?

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

Lawyer Ron Coleman on brands, the Internet & free speech

© Copyright 2022 Blogus. All Rights Reserved. by Themeansar

  • Legal standards for likelihood of confusion
Loading Comments...