Ron Coleman Wins One for the First Amendment

The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that the provisions of the Lanham Act which permits the Patent and Trademark Office to decline to register “disparaging” trademarks is unconstitutional. The case, In Re Tam, was argued for the appellant by Ron Coleman. Ron is also representing Patterico in the Kimberlin v. Frey RICO Remnant LOLsuit.

Here’s the court’s ruling—

BTW, this is the same provision of the Lanham Act that was used to revoke the Redskins trademark.

17 thoughts on “Ron Coleman Wins One for the First Amendment


  1. The Lanham act is the Federal Trademark act, so most everything statutory about trademarks springs from it.

    One story I heard about scandalous material that was initially accepted, then rejected was ‘Heaven’s Above.’ It was for ladies’ stockings.


  2. From twitter just now:

    Me: Ron Coleman am I reading this correctly? there’s a lawyer named “Darth Newman?”

    Ron: You are. There is. And he is your father.

    Me: No! That’s impossible! Why did he cut off my hand?


  3. Say, wasn’t Ron Coleman the guy that the tiny pedo said was a hack who he could beat easily????

Leave a Reply