Skip to content
LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™

Ron Coleman on the law affecting 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

Tag: The Slants

Posted on May 25, 2021 Section 2(a)

This is the last SLANTS song I’ll ever sing for you

For now. It was exciting last Friday, arguing the appeal of the THE SLANTS*, at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit!  A little... Read more

Posted on May 24, 2021 Section 2(a)

The PTO’s Certiorari Petition in The Slants case

Government's cert. petition in In re Tam https://t.co/PPoaT0euup @theslants #trademark #freespeech — Ron Coleman (@RonColeman) April 20, 2016 Originally posted 2016-04-20 22:53:13. Republished by Blog... Read more

Posted on April 19, 2021 Section 2(a)

“Indian givers” (part 1)

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... Read more

Posted on December 28, 2020 Section 2(a)

THE SLANTS wins

If you haven’t heard, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled and THE SLANTS trademark has won.  Section 2(a) has been invalidated with... Read more

Posted on September 25, 2020September 25, 2020 Free Expression

A world of difference

Thread. you grow by knowing decent, intelligent people who don’t see the world your way. https://t.co/DUoG0PVz96 — Bruce Godfrey (@BruceGodfrey) September 25, 2020 Read more

Posted on November 1, 2019 Free Expression

That great, free First Amendment thing (Best of 2017)

First published July 24, 2017. I was recently, and very briefly, the toast of whatever for my efforts in making the world safe for nasty... Read more

Posted on October 29, 2019 TTAB Practice

Update (and clarifications) about the SLANTS appeal (UPDATED)

There has been some press coverage of the intention of my client, The Slants, to appeal the denial of their application to register THE SLANTS.... Read more

John Welch of the TTABlog
Posted on October 17, 2019 TTAB Practice

Talking the Slants talk

@TTABlog This was the result of the best of intentions executed by fine professionals trying to divine their duties in a world gone mad. —... Read more

Posted on October 17, 2019March 18, 2021 Section 2(a)

Après Tam, le déluge? Nah.

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... Read more

Posted on October 17, 2019 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 September 20, 2019 Section 2(a)

TTAB re THE SLANTS trademark: Once disparaging, always disparaging

Remember the SLANTS trademark appeal to the TTAB?  Here’s the decision (below). For the TTAB, there’s only one answer to the “disparaging” question — well,... Read more

Posted on September 20, 2019 IP Institutions

Best of 2014: Consensus in Cleveland

First posted on March 12, 2014. Far be it from me to compare myself to the distinguished former Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit, the... Read more

Posted on August 21, 2019 Section 2(a)

Slanted against him

Another not-safe-for-work story is out there about a trademark registration denied under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act as “immoral or scandalous.”  John Welch and Marc... Read more

Posted on April 5, 2019 Section 2(a)

A basket of Lee v. Tam briefs

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... Read more

Posts navigation

← 1 2 3 4 →
  • 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

Tweets by likely2confuse
© 2022 LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION™
 

Loading Comments...