Skip to content

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

Ron Coleman on the law affecting brands, the Internet & free speech

  • Legal standards for likelihood of confusion
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Instagram
  • Firm
  • The Fashion Law blogger disclosures
  • Corporate Censorship in Social Media and a Role for the States
  • Carson Griffith vs. The Daily Beast
  • WFAF v. De Blasio
  • Pardon Ari Teman – My letter to the President
  • Video
  • 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

Tag: Redskins trademark

A certain NFL team is on the warpath

Posted on July 29, 2020 by Ron Coleman

Originally posted 2014-08-18 11:21:15. Republished by Blog Post PromoterSorry about the pun — but then again, I’m not the PTO; then again, too, my attitude […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

The Redskins appeal brief in Pro-Football v. Blackhorse

Posted on September 20, 2019 by Ron Coleman

Originally posted 2015-10-31 20:54:47. Republished by Blog Post Promoter

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

“Indian givers” (part 1)

Posted on March 29, 2016 by Ron Coleman

Originally posted 2015-02-16 17:37:02. Republished by Blog Post PromoterFor years I’ve been complaining that so much of the excitement in intellectual property law jurisprudence these days […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

“Indian givers” (part 2)

Posted on March 21, 2016 by Ron Coleman

Originally posted 2015-02-17 08:00:11. Republished by Blog Post Promoter [Note: This post was written before the December 22, 2015 Federal Circuit opinion in In re […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

43(a)? It’s not for me to say

Posted on January 7, 2016 by Ron Coleman

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 […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

Another bad season for the Redskins

Posted on July 8, 2015 by Ron Coleman

The Eastern District of Virginia has ruled (link to opinion here) on the summary judgment motions in Pro Football v. Blackhorse in the NFL’s appeal to the District […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

B&B Hardware: Beyond Nuts and Bolts

Posted on March 24, 2015 by Ron Coleman

I’d promised I’d wait on this, but I couldn’t, and you’ll see why.  Here’s my take on today’s Supreme Court decision in B&B Hardware v. Hargis […]

Continue reading »
Likelihood of Confusion

Indian givers (part 3)

Posted on February 18, 2015 by Ron Coleman

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 […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

Best of 2009: Jiggering it out at the PTO

Posted on January 26, 2015 by Ron Coleman

First posted January 29, 2009. Oh, to be a hip, Jewish intellectual… property owner. Stick with me here. A while back I was following the […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

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

Posted on December 27, 2014 by Ron Coleman

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 […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

Redskins decision: The present judges the past

Posted on June 18, 2014 by Ron Coleman

I’ve been writing about the dispute over the REDSKINS trademark on this blog more or less since the beginning of the blog itself. Today a […]

Continue reading »
Section 2(a)

Commercial, Trademark and Free Speech Litigation

https://youtu.be/iC2nZPc_THs

The Title, the Blog and the Blogger

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 legal issues related to blogging. That may sound like a lot, but it's just a blog.

ron-coleman-lawyerAs for me, I'm Ron Coleman, a commercial litigator and a partner in the Dhillon Law Group with a special interest in copyright and trademark law and free speech. I was also the lead lawyer for The Slants, The Band Who Must Not be Named.

For more information and how to contact me, click here.

READ THIS FIRST OR ELSE

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, BUT HE 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.

LIKELIHOOD OF ACCUMULATION

CATEGORIES (Still in progress…)

Copyright © Ron Coleman 2005-2020
Powered by WordPress and Momentous.