Content-Based Section 2 Refusal Checklist: Consent, Connection, and Insignia

By Casey Scott McKay · 2026-04-14

Twelve phases for the lawyer holding an office action that refuses a mark because of what it says about somebody. It sorts the six refusals that arrive in this family, then works each to its cure - the four-part attack on a false-connection refusal, the consent letter with the two clauses everyone omits, and the drawing amendment that converts a barred simulation into a registrable design. Each phase carries the authority, the evidence to assemble, and the trap that costs applicants their filing. There are separate passes for institutions, tribes, and foreign flags, which behave differently from the ordinary case, and a parallel-risk phase covering publicity rights and Section 43(a) exposure that a registrability analysis never surfaces. Three invented matters run through it, one per refusal.

IP and Technology > Trademarks | Checklist | Published 14 April 2026 - Updated 19 May 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us

Summary. Twelve phases for the lawyer holding an office action that refuses a mark because of what it says about somebody. It sorts the six refusals that arrive in this family, then works each to its cure — the four-part attack on a false-connection refusal, the consent letter with the two clauses everyone omits, and the drawing amendment that converts a barred simulation into a registrable design. Each phase carries the authority, the evidence to assemble, and the trap that costs applicants their filing. There are separate passes for institutions, tribes, and foreign flags, which behave differently from the ordinary case, and a parallel-risk phase covering publicity rights and Section 43(a) exposure that a registrability analysis never surfaces. Three invented matters run through it, one per refusal.

Keywords: section 2(a) refusal checklist · section 2(b) checklist · section 2(c) checklist · false suggestion of connection · notre dame four-part test · uniquely and unmistakably · sufficient fame prong · written consent to register · assignable consent clause · insignia simulation · ordinary observer · drawing amendment 2.72 · foreign flag mark · paris article 6ter · failure to function refusal · right of publicity overlap · section 43(a) false endorsement · ex parte appeal · request for reconsideration · examiner interview

What this checklist is for

This is the working document for a content-based refusal under Section 2. It does not re-teach the constitutional background. If you cannot say in one sentence why Vidal v. Elster upheld the names clause after Tam and Brunetti struck its neighbors, read Names, Flags, and Offense first. The reasoning behind each box — why prong four is the underused attack, why a Section 2(b) refusal has no consent cure, why the specimen matters more than the First Amendment — is in Overcoming a False Connection, Insignia, or Name Refusal. This document tells you what to do, in order.

Who should use it. Prosecution counsel responding to a Section 2(a), 2(b), or 2(c) refusal; brand counsel clearing a mark that contains or evokes a person, an institution, or a sovereign symbol; in-house counsel deciding between an appeal and a rebrand; and anyone drafting an endorsement agreement who wants the consent problem solved before it exists.

What you'll need before you start. The office action with every cited authority and every attached exhibit; the application file including the drawing, the identification, and the specimen; the applicant's mark-adoption documents; any agreement with a named individual or institution; the official emblem, from the sovereign's own publication, where insignia is at issue; and the response deadline with the extension date calendared. On the clock, see Office Action Deadlines.

The three worked matters. Matter A: Harrow & Vale Provisions applies for DUKE ELLINGTON'S MIDNIGHT HEAT for hot sauce; refused under § 2(a) as falsely suggesting a connection. Matter B: Corvid Athletics applies for REESE HALVORSEN SIGNATURE for training equipment; Halvorsen is a climber under contract; refused under § 2(c). Matter C: Bureau Coffee Roasters applies for BUREAU with a shield-eagle-banner device; refused under § 2(b) as a simulation of the Great Seal.

| Phase | What you accomplish | Typical elapsed time | |---|---|---| | 1 | Sort the refusal and calendar the clock | 1-2 days | | 2 | Run the four-part false-connection test | 1 week | | 3 | Build the prong 2 record | 2-3 weeks | | 4 | Build the prong 4 record | 1-2 weeks | | 5 | Handle the institutional variant | 1-2 weeks | | 6 | Procure and draft the § 2(c) consent | 1-3 weeks | | 7 | Diagnose and cure the insignia refusal | 2-4 weeks | | 8 | Handle the foreign-flag variant | 1-2 weeks | | 9 | Answer the failure-to-function refusal | 2-4 weeks | | 10 | Check the parallel risks | 1 week | | 11 | Interview, then file the response | 1-2 weeks | | 12 | Decide reconsideration, appeal, or rebrand | 2-20 months |

Phase 1 — Sort the refusal and calendar the clock

[ ] Identify every ground in the office action, not just the first. Refusals in this family arrive stacked.
- The six. False suggestion of a connection, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a); deceptive matter, § 2(a); flags and insignia, § 2(b); name of a living individual, § 2(c); failure to function, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051, 1052, 1053, 1127; and likelihood of confusion, § 2(d).
[ ] Note whether each refusal is final or non-final, and calendar the response date and the extension date.
[ ] Confirm no refusal rests on a struck provision.
- Authority. Disparagement is gone. Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017). "Immoral" and "scandalous" are gone. Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388 (2019). If you receive one, cite the case and it will be withdrawn.
[ ] Match each ground to its cure before writing anything: prong attack (2(a) connection), materiality attack (2(a) deception), drawing amendment (2(b)), written consent (2(c)), specimen and placement evidence (failure to function).
- Trap. The most common wasted response in this family is a First Amendment argument against a Section 2(c) refusal that a signature would cure. Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286 (2024) settled that. Preserve the point in a paragraph if the client insists; do not build on it.
[ ] Read the examiner's attached evidence page by page and list every exhibit. Your response is a response to that record.

Phase 2 — Run the four-part false-connection test

[ ] Write out the four elements and mark which the examiner's evidence actually supports.
- Authority. University of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372, 1375-77 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Pedersen, 109 U.S.P.Q.2d 1185 (T.T.A.B. 2013); TMEP § 1203.03.
- Prong 1. Same as or a close approximation of the name or identity previously used by another.
- Prong 2. Would be recognized as such, pointing uniquely and unmistakably to that party.
- Prong 3. The party is not connected with the applicant's goods or services.
- Prong 4. The name or identity is of sufficient fame or reputation that a connection would be presumed when used on these goods.
[ ] Concede prong 1 where the mark contains the name.
- Why. Arguing it wastes the response and costs credibility on the prongs you can win.
[ ] Test prong 3 as a business question first: is a license, endorsement, or affiliation available?
- Why. Obtaining the connection ends the refusal and usually resolves the parallel publicity-rights exposure at the same time. Price it before briefing. See Clearing and Licensing Name, Image, and Likeness.
[ ] Confirm whether the named party is living or deceased, because the answer changes which bar applies.
- Authority. § 2(c) reaches only the living; the false-connection bar reaches the dead. In re Jackson International Trading Co., 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1417 (T.T.A.B. 2012) (BENNY GOODMAN COLLECTION).
[ ] Tell the client early where the answer is no.
- Trap. A mark built on a famous person's identity with no license does not register. Two rounds of briefing will not change that, and the client is better served by hearing it in the first memo along with the two real options: get the license, or change the mark.

Matter A, Phase 2. Prong 1 conceded. Prong 2 is strong for the examiner. Prong 3 is curable only by an estate license. Prong 4 is the only genuine argument, and it is weakened by the estate's active licensing program. Counsel's memo recommends approaching the estate and, failing that, changing the mark.

Phase 3 — Build the prong 2 record

[ ] Compile a third-party use table: mark, owner, goods, register or source, status, date. Aim for fifteen to twenty-five entries.
[ ] Search beyond the federal register: state registrations, business directories, domain registrations, and marketplace listings.
[ ] Collect dictionary, encyclopedia, and gazetteer entries for every non-personal meaning of the term.
[ ] Collect directory evidence showing multiple living individuals with the name.
[ ] Analyze the mark as a whole, not the name in isolation, and argue the different commercial impression the composite creates.
[ ] Where the mark is a nickname, allusion, or partial reference, gather evidence that the reference is ambiguous.
- Authority and caution. The Board rejected the ambiguity argument for ROYAL KATE. In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1629 (T.T.A.B. 2015). It remains available, and it turns entirely on the strength of the record.
[ ] Label every exhibit and describe it in the response text.
- Trap. An examiner who cannot find your third-party uses will not credit them. A table of contents and a one-line description per exhibit is the difference between evidence and paper.

Phase 4 — Build the prong 4 record

[ ] Read prong 4 as the relational test it is: would a connection be presumed when the mark is used on the applicant's goods, not merely is the person famous.
[ ] Map the field and limits of the named party's reputation with media coverage, and document the distance between that field and the applicant's category.
[ ] Search for any commercial activity by the named party in the applicant's category — products, licenses, endorsements, prior applications. Absence is your argument; presence ends it.
[ ] Draft the core paragraph as a two-sentence structure: what the examiner's evidence establishes, and what it does not.
- Model. The examining attorney's evidence establishes the composer's reputation in twentieth-century jazz and nowhere else. There is no evidence that the estate has ever licensed, sold, or been associated with food products, condiments, or any consumer packaged good, and absent such evidence no purchaser of hot sauce would presume a connection.
[ ] Why this phase matters. Every applicant argues prong 2 and examiners have heard it. Fewer argue prong 4, which is what the statute actually requires and is often the weaker half of the examiner's record.

Phase 5 — Handle the institutional variant

[ ] Identify which kind of institution is involved, because they behave differently.
[ ] Universities, teams, and cultural institutions. Expect resistance twice — from the examiner and from the institution's watch program. Prong 4 is easier for the examiner where the institution runs a licensing program. Where it licenses, the license is the answer. See Trademark Watch Services.
[ ] Federally recognized tribes. Check the USPTO's database of tribal insignia. A tribal name, symbol, or design element implicates both the false-connection bar and, for official insignia, § 2(b). Consultation with the tribe is the practical and expected answer.
[ ] Government agencies. An agency name or acronym generally draws a refusal that is not close, plus a possible protective statute. The response is a name change.
[ ] Religious bodies and beliefs. The statute reaches "beliefs." Focus the response on prong 2: a general religious allusion rarely points uniquely and unmistakably to a particular institution.
[ ] Where available, obtain a letter of no objection from the institution.
- Note. This is not a statutory consent — the false-connection bar has no consent mechanism — but it is persuasive on prongs 3 and 4, and examiners regularly credit it.

Phase 6 — Procure and draft the § 2(c) consent

[ ] Confirm the bar actually applies: would the name, portrait, or signature be understood as identifying a particular living individual? TMEP § 1206.
[ ] Where it does not — a common surname with no particular referent, or the applicant is the individual — say so and support it with directory evidence.
[ ] Where it does, obtain a written consent and include all six components.
- Full legal name and any professional name.
- The mark and the application serial number.
- Express consent to registration, not merely to use.
- Confirmation that the mark identifies the individual.
- Consent extending to successors and assigns, and to renewals, maintenance filings, and related applications.
- Signature and date.
- Trap. The two extension clauses are the ones consents omit, and their absence creates a problem at the first 15 U.S.C. § 1058 and § 1059 filing, or on a change of control, when nobody remembers who to call.
[ ] Put the consent inside the underlying agreement where a relationship exists — endorsement, employment, license — and address what happens to the mark when the relationship ends.
- Why. A signature brand that reverts to the individual on termination is a different asset from one that does not, and that term is negotiated once, at the beginning. See Drafting a Trademark License That Survives and Whose Brand Is It?.
[ ] Add consent language to the firm's standard endorsement template so the next matter never generates this refusal.

Matter B, Phase 6. Halvorsen is under contract. Consent obtained by email in two days, filed with the response, refusal withdrawn. The three months lost were entirely avoidable.

Phase 7 — Diagnose and cure the insignia refusal

[ ] Confirm the three structural features before drafting.
- No consent exception. Not from the sovereign, not from anyone. A municipality cannot register its own seal. In re City of Houston, 731 F.3d 1326, 1329-32 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
- "Insignia" is narrow. Flags, coats of arms, and seals — the emblems of sovereignty — read ejusdem generis. Not every governmental symbol or agency device. TMEP § 1204.01.
- The test is the ordinary observer's impression.
[ ] Run the two arguments in order. Not an insignia: the cited device is a building, landmark, generic emblem, or agency logo rather than a flag, coat of arms, or seal. Not a simulation: the design differs in the recognizable elements — element count and arrangement, proportions, official text or motto, color, configuration.
[ ] Attach the official emblem from the sovereign's own publication and build a side-by-side exhibit.
- Why. Describing differences in prose loses. Showing them wins.
[ ] Where the design genuinely simulates an emblem, amend the drawing: change the element count, alter proportions, remove official text, integrate the device into other matter, or stylize it beyond recognition.
[ ] Confirm the amendment is not a material alteration of the mark as filed. 37 C.F.R. § 2.72. If it is, file a new application and accept the new priority date.
[ ] Check the separate use statutes. 18 U.S.C. § 713 restricts use of the Great Seal and related seals, and specific agency emblems have their own protections. A design that clears § 2(b) can still create exposure in use, and the packaging may differ from the drawing.

Matter C, Phase 7. The drawing is amended: the eagle faces the other way and holds nothing, the shield loses its chief-and-pale division, and the banner carries the applicant's own wording. Side-by-side exhibit filed. Refusal withdrawn in one round.

Phase 8 — Handle the foreign-flag variant

[ ] Remember that § 2(b) reaches any foreign nation on the same terms, with no consent cure.
[ ] Flag the common cases: national flag devices on imported foods, wines, spirits, watches, knives, syrup, and apparel.
[ ] Check emblems with separate protection — the Swiss cross, protected in connection with the Red Cross emblem, and state emblems notified under Article 6ter of the Paris Convention, which the USPTO consults.
[ ] Run the same ordinary-observer simulation analysis, and design the flag out rather than argue about it.
[ ] Check the two companion problems: geographic deceptiveness under § 2(e)(3) and In re Budge Manufacturing Co., 857 F.2d 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988) if the goods do not come from that country, and country-of-origin marking under customs law.
- See. Overcoming a Section 2 Refusal.

Phase 9 — Answer the failure-to-function refusal

[ ] Recognize what it is doing. After Brunetti, examiners cannot refuse for vulgarity, and a source-identification doctrine now carries some of that weight. Respond on the merits, not on the Constitution.
[ ] Assemble placement evidence: hangtags, neck labels, bottle caps, packaging panels, consistent placement across products, and use with ™ or ®.
[ ] Substitute a better specimen where the filing basis allows it, and confirm the substitute shows the date-of-use requirements.
[ ] Assemble marketing evidence presenting the term as a brand rather than as a message.
[ ] Where the mark is a slogan, build this record before filing, not after the refusal.
- See. Failure to Function; Overcoming an Ornamentality or Failure to Function Refusal; Specimen Refusals.

Phase 10 — Check the parallel risks

[ ] Right of publicity. Run it separately, under the law of the individual's domicile, and check post-mortem duration, which ranges from none to a century. A mark that clears § 2(c) because the person is deceased may still violate a post-mortem statute, and a mark that clears prong 4 may still be an unpermitted commercial use.
- See. Name, Image, and Likeness Clearance Checklist.
[ ] False endorsement under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A). A private claim available to the person or institution evoked, independent of what the Board thinks of the four-part test.
[ ] Sovereign-symbol use statutes. Independent of registrability, and they apply to the packaging rather than the drawing.
[ ] Put all of it in the same memo as the refusal analysis, and price both.
- Why. The research overlaps almost entirely, so running them together costs little. A client who overcomes the refusal and then receives a demand letter from the same estate will reasonably ask why nobody mentioned it.

Phase 10A — Price the whole thing before you write

[ ] Give the client a written budget for the branch you are recommending, not a single number for "responding."
- Diagnosis and strategy memo. $1,000-$3,000.
- False-connection response with a built evidence record. $12,000-$35,000. Most of that is evidence assembly, not drafting.
- Section 2(c) consent procurement and filing. $2,000-$9,000, and near zero where the consent was obtained before filing.
- Insignia redesign and response. $6,000-$18,000 including the designer.
- Failure-to-function response with a new specimen. $6,000-$20,000.
- Examiner interview. $1,500-$4,000, and it frequently saves more than it costs.
- Request for reconsideration. $6,000-$18,000.
- Ex parte appeal to the Board. $25,000-$70,000, twelve to twenty months.
- Federal Circuit appeal or a 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b) civil action. $90,000-$300,000, twelve to twenty-four months.
[ ] Put the rebranding number next to the appeal number in the same table.
- Why. A client choosing between a $50,000 appeal with a modest chance of success and a $180,000 rebrand needs both figures on one page. Presented separately, the appeal always looks cheaper, because the rebrand is the number nobody computes until it is forced.
[ ] Add the cost of doing nothing — continued use without registration — expressed as what the client loses: no nationwide constructive use, no evidentiary presumptions, no incontestability, no Customs recordation, and reduced access to marketplace and platform enforcement programs, which increasingly gate on a registration number.
- See. Online Brand Protection Toolkit.
[ ] Where the mark is central to the business and the refusal is legally wrong rather than evidentiarily unfavorable, recommend the appeal and say why in one sentence.
[ ] Where the refusal reflects a genuine evidentiary problem, recommend the amendment or the rebrand and say that too.
- Trap. Appeals in this family are usually lost on the record rather than on the law. A Board panel reviewing the same evidence the examiner had is unlikely to weigh it differently. If the answer is "we need better evidence," the answer is a request for reconsideration, not an appeal.

Phase 10B — Clear the next mark so this never happens again

[ ] Add an identity pass to the firm's clearance protocol, separate from the confusion search.
- Why. A standard knockout search answers the § 2(d) question and answers nothing about §§ 2(a), 2(b), or 2(c). Marks containing or evoking a person, an institution, or a sovereign symbol need their own pass, and it is not expensive to run. See Trademark Clearance Searching and Running a Full Trademark Clearance Search.
[ ] The identity pass, in six questions.
1. Does the mark contain a personal name, nickname, initials, signature, or portrait?
2. If so, is there a living person the relevant public would identify? If yes, obtain consent before filing.
3. Is there a deceased person, institution, tribe, agency, belief, or national symbol the mark evokes? If yes, run the four-part test and check post-mortem publicity law.
4. Does any element resemble a flag, coat of arms, or official seal, domestic or foreign?
5. Does the mark read as a slogan, message, or decoration rather than as a source indicator? If yes, plan the specimen.
6. Does the intended use itself — as opposed to the registration — implicate publicity rights, § 43(a) false endorsement, or a sovereign-symbol use statute?
[ ] Add consent language to the firm's endorsement, sponsorship, and employment templates, with successors-and-assigns and renewal clauses.
[ ] Record the identity-pass conclusions in the clearance opinion.
- Why. It is the document that shows the client's adoption was reasoned, and it does double duty later on good faith if anyone accuses the client of trading on a reputation. See Trademark Clearance Search Checklist.
[ ] Diarize a six-month review of every mark that cleared the identity pass with a caveat.
- Why. The analysis is time-sensitive in a way the confusion analysis is not. A person who was unknown when the mark was cleared can become identifiable, an institution can start a licensing program, and a post-mortem publicity term can be extended by statute. A mark that was safe in 2024 is not automatically safe in 2027, and the review costs fifteen minutes.
[ ] Keep a firm-level list of the recurring problem categories, because they repeat: founder names on consumer brands, athlete and chef endorsements, historical figures on food and spirits, eagles and shields on anything that wants to look official, national flags on imported goods, and slogans printed across the chest of a garment. Six categories account for most of the refusals in this family, and every one of them is cheaper to prevent than to answer.

Phase 11 — Interview, then file

[ ] Request an examiner interview before drafting the substantive response.
- Why. These refusals are evidence-and-judgment calls, and a fifteen-minute call frequently identifies exactly what would move the analysis.
[ ] Ask four questions: which element the examiner regards as strongest; what evidence would change it; whether a drawing or identification amendment would resolve it; and whether a disclaimer or limitation helps.
[ ] Put the substance of the interview into the written response.
- Trap. The interview is not part of the record until you make it so.
[ ] File with a labeled exhibit set, a table of contents, and a response that walks the examiner through each exhibit.

Phase 12 — Decide reconsideration, appeal, or rebrand

[ ] On a final refusal, price the three paths honestly.
- Request for reconsideration with genuinely new evidence, within the response period. Cheap; preserves the appeal; does not work as re-argument.
- Ex parte appeal under 15 U.S.C. § 1070 and 37 C.F.R. § 2.141. Twelve to twenty months, $25,000 to $70,000. The record closes, so get the evidence in first.
- Federal Circuit appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B), or a civil action under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b) where you need a new record. Registrability de novo; factual findings for substantial evidence.
[ ] Quantify the rebranding alternative before choosing.
- See. Executing a Rebrand; Changing the Name on the Door.
[ ] Where the mark is already in use, confirm what survives a refusal: common-law rights in the territory of actual use, with priority from first use, but no § 1072 constructive notice, no § 1057(b) presumptions, no § 1065 incontestability, and limited platform enforcement access.
- See. Establishing and Proving Common-Law Trademark Rights; Where Your Trademark Rights End.
[ ] Do not propose the Supplemental Register as a cure.
- Trap. It is available for matter capable of becoming distinctive, not for § 2(a), 2(b), or 2(c) refusals, which apply to both registers.

Key Authorities at a Glance

| Authority | What it provides | Phase | |---|---|---| | 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) | False connection; deceptive matter | 1-5 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1052(b) | Flags, coats of arms, insignia | 7, 8 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1052(c) | Names of living individuals | 6 | | Univ. of Notre Dame du Lac v. J.C. Gourmet Food Imports Co., 703 F.2d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 1983) | The four-part test | 2 | | In re Nieves & Nieves LLC, 113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1629 (T.T.A.B. 2015) | Nicknames and allusive references | 3 | | In re Jackson Int'l Trading Co., 103 U.S.P.Q.2d 1417 (T.T.A.B. 2012) | The bar reaches the deceased | 2 | | In re Pedersen, 109 U.S.P.Q.2d 1185 (T.T.A.B. 2013) | Application of the prongs | 2 | | Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) | No disparagement refusal | 1 | | Iancu v. Brunetti, 588 U.S. 388 (2019) | No immoral-or-scandalous refusal | 1, 9 | | Vidal v. Elster, 602 U.S. 286 (2024) | Names clause upheld; consent is the path | 1, 6 | | In re City of Houston, 731 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2013) | No consent exception under § 2(b) | 7 | | In re Budge Mfg. Co., 857 F.2d 773 (Fed. Cir. 1988) | Deceptive matter; geographic deception | 8 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1127 | Source identification; failure to function | 9 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)(1)(A) | False endorsement and association | 10 | | 18 U.S.C. § 713 | Use of the Great Seal and related seals | 7, 8 | | 37 C.F.R. § 2.72 | Material alteration limit on amendments | 7 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1058 | Maintenance filings the consent must reach | 6 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1070 | Ex parte appeal | 12 | | 37 C.F.R. § 2.141 | Appeal procedure | 12 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b) | Civil action with a new record | 12 | | 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(4)(B) | Federal Circuit jurisdiction and standards | 12 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1057(b) | Presumptions lost without registration | 12 | | 15 U.S.C. § 1065 | Incontestability lost without registration | 12 | | TMEP § 1203.03 | False connection practice | 2 |

The five things people get wrong

Arguing the First Amendment. After Elster, a viewpoint-neutral content-based bar will be upheld. The constitutional paragraph is a way of avoiding the evidentiary argument that would actually win.

Arguing prong 2 and stopping. Prong 4 requires that a connection be presumed on these goods. It is the underused attack and it is frequently the weaker half of the examiner's record.

Chasing consent after filing. Section 2(c) has a complete cure that costs a signature — obtained before filing, when the relationship is warm, and drafted to reach successors and renewals.

Briefing a Section 2(b) refusal instead of redrawing. There is no consent cure and the ordinary-observer question is unpredictable. An afternoon with a designer beats $15,000 of argument.

Treating the refusal as the whole risk. Publicity rights, false endorsement, and sovereign-symbol use statutes all operate independently of registrability, and they arrive later, from someone with a lawyer.