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
    • Redskins
Section 2(a)

Free speech about trademarks and free speech

Ron Coleman May 4, 2016 0 Comments

Speech about trademarks, trademark registrations and free speech have bubbled so verily to the top of the public imagination that it’s all over the official organ of free speech, the…

Section 2(a)

43(a)? It’s not for me to say

Ron Coleman Jan 7, 2016 0 Comments

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 as far as I can…

Section 2(a)

So, how about those Redskins?

Ron Coleman Dec 27, 2015 7 Comments

I’ve been writing about the Redskins and the tribulations — and, as it turns out, trials — of their REDSKINS trademarks since long before that first post about that rock…

Section 2(a)

The Redskins appeal brief in Pro-Football v. Blackhorse

Ron Coleman Oct 31, 2015 0 Comments
Free Expression

Laws don’t kill free speech, legislators do

Ron Coleman Sep 13, 2015 0 Comments

All is proceeding as I have foreseen: http://t.co/NMS2CBQjdO https://t.co/Mgi79j8ieP — Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) September 10, 2015

Section 2(a)

Another bad season for the Redskins

Ron Coleman Jul 8, 2015 0 Comments

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 Court of…

Section 2(a)

Friends of the court, friends of the First Amendment

Ron Coleman Jun 19, 2015 0 Comments

The approved and publishable amicus briefs in the appeal regarding the trademark registration of THE SLANTS are trickling in. Certainly interesting to see who is saying what. So far, they…

Section 2(a)

The ACLU’s strange bedfellows

Ron Coleman Mar 9, 2015 0 Comments

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 be that way. They even…

Section 2(a)

Trademarks, the Redskins and the constitution

Ron Coleman Feb 25, 2015 1 Comments

The NFL’s brief on the issue you’ve read about everywhere, including here, is now out and about (courtesy of John Welch): NFL v Blackhorse – The Redskins Brief

Section 2(a)

Indian givers (part 3)

Ron Coleman Feb 18, 2015 0 Comments

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 the TTAB, I asked, as…

Section 2(a)

“Indian givers” (part 2)

Ron Coleman Feb 17, 2015 2 Comments

Yesterday I ended part one of this post about a proposed law to outlaw any trademark registration rights for the NFL’s Washington Redskins with this question: Given the offensive nature…

Section 2(a)

“Indian givers” (part 1)

Ron Coleman Feb 16, 2015 2 Comments

For years I’ve been complaining that so much of the excitement in intellectual property law jurisprudence these days involves policy-making by judges and the PTO. How and what is secondary…

Section 2(a)

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

Ron Coleman Dec 27, 2014 0 Comments

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 of the blog itself. Today…

Section 2(a)

A certain NFL team is on the warpath

Ron Coleman Aug 18, 2014 1 Comments

Sorry about the pun — but then again, I’m not the PTO; then again, too, my attitude toward “scandalous and offensive” ethnic marks is different from that of lots of…

Posts pagination

1 2

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...