Skip to content
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

Lawyer Ron Coleman on brands, the Internet & free speech

  • Legal standards for likelihood of confusion
  • 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
    • 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

Category: Section 2(a)

Posted on March 13, 2023 Section 2(a)

Brand Me Infantile

Reuters reports that U.K. regulators have once again slapped the wrist of the French Connection clothing company for their jejune FCUK ad campaign (“French Connection... Read more

Posted on January 7, 2023 Section 2(a)

Indian givers (part 3)

Part one and part two of this three-part post were published earlier this week. When the PTO’s decision revoking the REDSKINS registrations was affirmed by... Read more

Posted on January 2, 2023 Section 2(a)

The ACLU’s strange bedfellows

Here’s some news:  The American Civil Liberties Union says the Redskins are wrong, damned wrong — but they’ve got every right in the world to... Read more

Posted on December 12, 2022 Section 2(a)

Best of 2014: Redskins decision: The present judges the past

Originally posted on June 18, 2014. I’ve been writing about the dispute over the REDSKINS trademark on this blog more or less since the beginning... Read more

Posted on October 3, 2022 Section 2(a)

Hurray for Hollywood!

The official website of the thing is here.  Register to attend by clicking here. I’ll be speaking about In re Tam but don’t worry, there... Read more

Posted on June 26, 2022June 26, 2022 Section 2(a)

The return of the scandalous mark denial?

Perhaps the “immoral and scandalous” rule is nothing to sniff at, after all. The Times asks: Will the COCAINE tradememark take a powder? I don’t... Read more

Posted on May 25, 2022 Section 2(a)

Slant on The Slants

Everybody can have an IP blog.  But hardly anybody, it seems, is prepared to do the work required to blog. I refer now to the... Read more

Posted on April 29, 2022 Section 2(a)

Redskins redux

Remember the Washington Redskins trademark tussle? CNBC reports that it’s back — again — and better than ever. This time the focus is an interesting... Read more

Posted on April 20, 2022 Section 2(a)

A different Slant

Does this story in the Northwest Asian Weekly about the trademark registration woes of a rock band called The Slants sound familiar? The Slants, whose members... Read more

Posted on April 1, 2022 Section 2(a)

“Rock ‘n Roll, Redskins & Free Speech”

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

Posted on December 23, 2021 Section 2(a)

43(a)? It’s not for me to say

I’m kind of tired of In re Tam also.  But I have been a bit surprised that there has not been a more discussion, or... Read more

Posted on October 26, 2021 Section 2(a)

Redskins redux 2

I didn’t have a chance to mention that last month, the order denying the legal challenge to the Washington Redskin’s use of its trademark American... Read more

Posted on October 8, 2021 Section 2(a)

The only unmentionable trademark?

We alluded to this story in an earlier post. Evidently Daman Wayans’s attempt to file a trademark application for the word “Nigga” continues to hit... Read more

Posted on July 29, 2021July 28, 2021 Section 2(a)

Thanks for listening, Ecuador!

That’s it. That’s the post. Read more

Posts navigation

1 2 3 … 5 →
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Corporate Censorship in Social Media and a Role for the States

Ron Coleman of the DHILLON LAW GROUP

Click the pic for more information - admitted in New York and New Jersey

This blog

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.

PODCAST

ColemanNation

Commercial, Trademark and Free Speech Litigation at DHILLON LAW GROUP

https://youtu.be/iC2nZPc_THs

LIKELIHOOD OF ACCUMULATION

CATEGORIES (Still in progress…)

DISCLAIMER

THIS BLOG IS ONLY A BLOG, NOT LEGAL ADVICE. IT IS IN PART AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES BY RONALD D. COLEMAN, AN ATTORNEY ADMITTED IN NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY ONLY, WHO IS NOT YOUR LAWYER. YOU ARE NOT HIS CLIENT. JUST WALK BESIDE HIM AND BE HIS FRIEND.

This is my very special privacy policy.

THIS WEBSITE MAY BE CONSIDERED ATTORNEY ADVERTISING, DAMN IT

© 2023 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™
 

Loading Comments...