Source: https://lawyers.law.cornell.edu/lawyer/ronald-d-coleman-1482337
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 20:21:16+00:00

Document:
I have successfully represented clients of every size in state and federal courts, arbitrations and mediations in a variety of litigation matters, including contract disputes, distributorship litigation, trademark and unfair competition cases, business tort claims, toxic tort and insurance coverage litigation, discrimination and wrongful discharge cases, copyright infringement claims, and cases involving trade secrets, restrictive covenants and real estate. My litigation experience runs from pretrial investigation and early dispute resolution through every aspect of bench and jury trials as well as appeals.
My blog about copyright, trademark and related issues, LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION®, was recognized by the ABA Journal as one of the top 100 law-related blogs in the country in its first-ever listing in 2007.
Faith Under Democracy: What Have Religious Believers Gained? What Have They Lost?
Protecting Intellectual Property Rights Where Wireless is Ubiquitous"
Prudential Standing: Who is "any person" under the Lanham Act?
Gavin McInnes v. Southern Poverty Law Center, Inc.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Matal v. Tam struck the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of disparaging marks as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. This panel evaluates the decision and contemplates its wider implications, including its applicability to the separate ban on registration of immoral and scandalous marks, anti-dilution protection and the broader intersection of intellectual property rights and free speech.
Attorney Ronald D. Coleman will join attorney Victoria Burke for a discussion on his road to Supreme Court victory. You may be familiar with the facts of the Slants case (Matal v. Tam), now hear the untold stories from the man who took the case pro bono asserting his clients had a First Amendment Right to use the name Slants for their music group and appeared in front of the United States Supreme Court, which ultimately lead to the change in trademark law regarding the right to register disparaging marks.
2016 saw an assault on the age-old axiom that for a markholder to have rights in the U.S., that same mark must actually be used in the U.S. And, while what constitutes “use” has long been debated in U.S. courts and before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), use in the U.S. as a precondition to an unfair competition claim under the Lanham Act is no longer the law in the Fourth Circuit. In Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Case AG et al., the Fourth Circuit concluded that a false advertising or false association claim under Lanham Act Section 43(a) (15 U.S.C. §1125(a)) need not be premised upon the ownership of a U.S. trademark registration or even use of a mark in the U.S. Rather, a §43(a) claim is available to “[a]ny person who believes that he is or will be damaged” as a result of a defendant’s conduct. Thus, reasoned the Fourth Circuit, the question to be resolved under §43(a) is not whether the defendant’s activities infringe the plaintiff’s registered mark; but rather, whether the defendant has used in commerce a word, term, name, or symbol that plaintiff believes is likely to cause it damage. The Federal Circuit also abandoned this bedrock use requirement in Christian Faith Fellowship v. Adidas AG, where it reversed the TTAB’s cancellation of two marks on grounds that the registrant’s trivial out-of-state sales were nevertheless enough “use in commerce” to invoke protection under the Lanham Act. But this sea change in the standards of use are not merely confined to the U.S. Canada too is scheduled to abandon its long time reliance on use as a precondition to obtaining a Canadian trademark registration. Canada’s recently amended Trade-marks Act is scheduled to be implemented in 2019 and looks to eliminate several filing bases, including proposed use. The panellists will address relevant decisions and legislation and will explain how these developments contribute to an ever evolving trademark litigation and prosecution landscape in the U.S. and Canada.
STRAIGHT FROM THE HEADLINES We are thrilled to welcome Ronald D. Coleman, Esq., as this year’s keynote speaker. Most recently recognized for his work on the widely publicized The Slants litigation (In re Simon Shiao Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, Fed. Cir. 2015), Mr. Coleman has helped to shape the law relating to the use and abuse of intellectual property as a tool of competition. His blog about copyright, trademark and free speech, Likelihood of Confusion®, is considered one of the most influential publications in IP law today.
“Litigating a Brand: The Dual Perspective of In-House and Outside Counsel” will cover the latest trademark cases that impact the fashion industry, both from a federal courts perspective and from the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). Panelists, including moderator Olivera Medenica (Medenica Law PLLC), Ronald D. Coleman (Archer P.C.), Rita Odin (The Estee Lauder Companies Inc.) and John L. Welch (Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.), will provide participants with practical insight into trademark enforcement; litigation strategies; and management of outside counsel by a brand’s in-house counsel. The Fashion Law Seminar in New York City will offer various approaches to trademark registration, preservation and protection.
Panel moderated by Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen. The other participants were Christine Haight Farley from American University's Washington College of Law and Tony Zeuli of Merchant and Gould, PC, in Minneapolis.
"Trademark infringement can result from conduct that doesn’t necessarily create a likelihood of confusion at the point of sale. What about confusion that likely occurs only before or after a sale? Learn from a likelihood of confusion guru, and author of the awardwinning Likelihood of Confusion® blog, about the current state of the law on initial interest confusion, post-sale confusion, and related legal theories and strategies."
From the ABA IP web page: Early in 2017, Simon Tam's legal team Ronald Coleman, John Connell, and Joel MacMull argued pro bono at the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of Mr. Tam in Matal v. Tam., resulting resulting in the invalidation, on constitutional grounds, of a federal intellectual property statute for only the second time in U.S. history.
"Archer & Greiner is home to Ronald Coleman, noted for his shrewd handling of disputes concerning freedom of expression – such as his representation of The Slants in a widely publicised case involving the constitutionality of disparaging marks. He is additionally well versed in online commercial issues and a fierce defender of small and medium-sized enterprises against illegitimate unfair competition claims."
WIPR Leaders is a one-stop guide to the leading IP practitioners in the world. The handbook lists over 1,700 lawyers across two volumes: over 900 individuals in the both the patent and the trademarks section (some individuals are in both). Stemming from a four month nomination period in which we sought views from 12,000 IP professionals, our research team vetted every nominated lawyer for suitability by exploring their work. This meant looking at practice history, industry expertise and notable cases, as well as any additional activities, such as writing and teaching responsibilities, which have allowed the lawyers to shape and influence other and future IP practitioners.
Every year, we ask SJ attorneys to tell us which of their peers have made an impressive and lasting mark in the legal field. They’re the counselors who are committed to upholding both the spirit and letter of the law. Our Top Attorney list showcases those successful professionals who deserve special recognition.
I am sure I am not the first, but I don't know anyone else who has received an AV rating as an associate.
Can a racial slur be trademarked? A fashion design copyrighted? Two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court will tell us much about the bounds of the First Amendment as it relates to intellectual property.
This Week in Law 340: Emily Litella Says "Never Mind"
Published on Mar 25, 2016 Host: Denise Howell Guests: Kashmir Hill, J. Michael Keyes, Ron Coleman What does privacy mean to you? Free speech and artificial intelligence, the FBI may have help unlocking an encrypted iPhone, Hulk Hogan vs Gawker Media, Naruto and the monkey selfie rides again and more!
Nadia Naffe appeals from the district court's dismissal of her action alleging that Los Angeles County district attorney John Frey used social media to harass and intimidate her in retaliation for her exercising her First Amendment rights. Frey's lawyer, Ronald Coleman, represents him on the appeal.
Are bloggers entitled to the same protections under the law as journalists? A question in the context of the iPhone / Gizmodo controversy.
This October 16, 2009 seminar at Court Plaza in Hackensack, NJ, featured a panel of experts who discussed the use of social media. Topics included best practices for legal blogging, pros and cons of social networking sites such as LinkedIn and Facebook, the business development value of social media, and other techniques and perspectives of lawyers and media professionals.
In this Lawline.com course, attorney Ron Coleman describes the best thing an attorney can do if a clients come into the office claiming they're the victim of defamation on a blog--stay calm. Perhaps the worst thing an attorney can do is attract unneccessary attention on a blog that otherwise has little traffic. An example involving the major law firm, Jones Day, is highlighted in order to demonstrate a counter-productive response.
Trademark law comments regarding a Google claim that certain political ads could not be run due to trademark concerns.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §1125
 §43
 §43
 v. 
 v.