Search for: "Ron Lanham"
Results 1 - 20
of 48
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Feb 2022, 12:44 pm
Furthermore, TTAB proceedings do not carry preclusive effect against subsequent Article III Federal Court proceedings under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act. [read post]
7 Dec 2018, 10:30 am
My 6 year-old daughter reads a series of chapter books by author Ron Roy, which are called the A to Z Mysteries. [read post]
28 Jul 2017, 5:00 am
Looking forward to sharing the podium with Joel MacMull of the Archer firm (counsel for Simon Tam, where our friend Ron Coleman is a partner) to discuss “Trademark Registration and the First Amendment,” on September 28th at the Midwest IP Institute in Minneapolis. [read post]
19 Jun 2017, 8:47 am
Ron, I had envisioned writing a very different post about the Supreme Court’s long-anticipated decision in Tam, you, your team, and Mr. [read post]
20 Feb 2017, 11:45 am
” As we have written before, the Supreme Court is being asked by our friend Ron Coleman, on behalf of Simon Tam, to declare unconstitutional the disparagement prong of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, as a violation of Mr. [read post]
2 Feb 2017, 9:43 am
Jan. 31, 2017)Club for Growth Action is a political organization that broadcast a 30-second political ad on Wisconsin television and the Internet in September 2015, challenging the record of former-Senator Russ Feingold, who was then running for re-election against Ron Johnson. [read post]
29 Sep 2016, 12:24 pm
Congratulations to Ron Colemen for shepherding this case and Profs Volokh and Banner who apparently wrote the petition response. [read post]
27 Jul 2016, 9:45 am
” Steve explained as follows: Hi Ron, thanks for dropping by. [read post]
13 Jul 2016, 11:55 am
Some Related Posts: * Fake Political Attack Video Doesn’t Violate Lanham Act–Ron Paul v. [read post]
29 Mar 2016, 7:53 pm
Question Number Two: What if Marty, John and Ron have the Second Circuit on their side? [read post]
15 Mar 2016, 10:58 am
Ron Coleman and his team at Archer Greiner are representing Tam in the case. = = = = = = Mandamus action also requires a substantial harm caused by the delay. [read post]
24 Feb 2016, 4:30 am
There is a cert petition pending, Ron's post provides a link. [read post]
8 Feb 2016, 4:23 pm
Such a distinction serves neither the interests of the First Amendment nor the Lanham Act. [read post]
7 Jan 2016, 11:52 pm
Many people (myself included) rejoiced when the PTO, citing the Lanham Act, revoked the team’s trademark registration. [read post]
6 Oct 2015, 1:19 am
To my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong Ron, but Congress has never forbidden and has no plans to forbid copyright registration to disparaging works of authorship, so a parade of horribles based on this fear seems misplaced. [read post]
4 May 2015, 9:16 am
Another might be Ron Coleman’s upcoming in banc oral argument at the Federal Circuit in The Slants case, to address the court’s sua sponte questions about whether the disparagement prong of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act violates Free Speech. [read post]
6 Mar 2015, 12:18 pm
Ron Collins (Concurring Opinions) for the pointer. [read post]
3 Mar 2015, 3:45 am
In an intriguing afternoon session, friends and fellow bloggers Ron Coleman and Steve Baird, along with Jesse Witten and the USPTO's Cynthia Lynch, will focus on "an overview of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act as well as the procedures for determining if a trademark is disparaging. [read post]
24 Feb 2015, 1:04 am
From my perspective, scandal aside, the title of Ron’s series is a misnomer, since the evidence of record in Harjo and Blackhorse showed that the R-Word was improperly granted registration in the first place, so I’m thinking, it looks far more like a windfall to the team than a taking. [read post]
20 Feb 2015, 3:32 am
In an intriguing afternoon session, fellow blogger Ron Coleman, my friend Steve Baird, Jesse Witten, and the USPTO's Cynthia Lynch will focus on "an overview of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act as well as the procedures for determining if a trademark is disparaging. [read post]
