First Principles

• The First Amendment– “Congress shall make no law…”

• Axiom: Trademark rights are a limitation on “speech” (expression)

• “Commercial speech” is also SPEECH

© Ronald D. Coleman WWW.LIKELIHOODOFCONFUSION.COM Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP

First Principles

[W]e cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words

without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 26 (1971)

© Ronald D. Coleman WWW.LIKELIHOODOFCONFUSION.COM Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP

THE ANCIENT TEST FOR TRADEMARK INFRINGEMENT vel non

LIKELIHOOD OF

CONFUSION© Ronald D. Coleman WWW.LIKELIHOODOFCONFUSION.COM Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP

PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY

Courts are not to stake out new territory in the

trademark domain at the expense of curtailing the

ability of a speaker to communicate his message.

Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989)

© Ronald D. Coleman WWW.LIKELIHOODOFCONFUSION.COM Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP

WEIGH EFFECT ON SPEECH

In determining the outer limits of trademark protection the weight of the risks of confusion and suppression of expression may tip the scales against trademark

protection.

Silverman v. CBS, Inc., 870 F.2d 40, 49 (2d Cir. 1989)

© Ronald D. Coleman WWW.LIKELIHOODOFCONFUSION.COM Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP

TRADEMARK LAW HAS NO LEGITIMATE ROLE AS A RESPONSE TO CRITICISM

A trademark may frequently be the most effective means of focusing attention on the trademark owner or its product, the recognition of exclusive rights encompassing such use would permit the stifling of unwelcome discussion, and is forbidden.– United We Stand Am., Inc. v. United We Stand, Am. N.Y., Inc., 128 F.3d

86, 92, n.3 (2d Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1521 (1998)

© Ronald D. Coleman WWW.LIKELIHOODOFCONFUSION.COM Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP

INITIAL INTEREST CONFUSION NOT APPLICABLE TO NON-COMPETITORS

PissedConsumer.com does not divert Internet users away from deVere’s website because deVere does not have a website that competes for business with PissedConsumer.com; Opinion Corp. provides a forum for customer criticism of businesses, while deVere provides financial services….Initial interest confusion does not arise in circumstances where the products in question are used for substantially different purposes and therefore the merchants are not in close competitive proximity. Accordingly, deVere’s allegations do not create any plausible inference of intentional deception; there is no risk that a customer seeking deVere financial services would mistakenly visit and divert their business to PissedConsumer.com.

– deVere Group GmbH v. Opinion Corp., 2012 WL 2884986 (E.D.N.Y. July 13, 2012)

© Ronald D. Coleman WWW.LIKELIHOODOFCONFUSION.COM Goetz Fitzpatrick LLP

NO LIKELIHOOD

OF CONFUSIONStop the Olympic

Prison v. United States Olympic

Committee, 489 F. Supp. 1112 (S.D.N.Y

1980)

NO LIKELIHOOD

OF CONFUSIONGirl Scouts v.

Personality Posters, 304 F. Supp. 1228

(SDNY 1969)

ENJOINED

under the

LANHAM ACT

Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky,

 993 F.Supp. 282 (D.N.J. 1998), aff'd, 159 F.3d 1351 (3d

Cir. 1998)

http://www.peta.org

ENJOINED

under the

LANHAM ACT

People for the Ethical Treatment of

Animals v. Doughney, 

263 F.3d 359 (4th Cir.2001)

Master Card Int'l Inc. v. Nader 2000

Campaign Committee, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

3644, *42, 70 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA)

1046, Copy. L. Rep. (CCH) P28,781 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)

NO LIKELIHOOD

OF CONFUSION

NO LIKELIHOOD

OF CONFUSIONAscentive, LLC v.

Opinion Corp., 842 F. Supp. 2d 450

(E.D.N.Y. 2011)

Louis Vuitton Malletier, S.A. v.

Hyundai Motor America, 2012 WL 1022247 (S.D.N.Y.)

ENJOINED

under the

LANHAM ACT

Thanks