Overcoming a False Connection, Insignia, or Name Refusal: A Practitioner's Guide to Consent, Connection, and the First Amendment
By Casey Scott McKay ·
A guide to the three content-based refusals that survived Tam and Brunetti, written for the lawyer holding the office action rather than the one writing the law review note. It runs each refusal through a diagnosis, an evidence plan, and a response strategy, with model language for the arguments that work and a candid account of the ones that do not. The false-connection sections show how to attack the uniquely-and-unmistakably prong and the sufficient-fame prong, which is where these refusals are actually beaten, and how to build the third-party-use record that supports it. The names sections cover the consent letter in detail, including the two clauses most consents omit. The insignia sections cover the drawing amendment that converts a barred simulation into a registrable design. It closes with the appeal calculus and what Elster left available.
IP and Technology > Trademarks | Guide | Published 16 November 2025 - Updated 15 March 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us IP and Technology > Trademarks | Guide | Published 16 November 2025 - Updated 15 March 2026 | Casey Scott McKay - marksy.us Summary. A guide to the three content-based refusals that survived Tam and Brunetti, written for the lawyer holding the office action rather than the one writing the law review note. It runs each refusal through a diagnosis, an evidence plan, and a response strategy, with model language for the arguments that work and a candid account of the ones that do not. The false-connection sections show how to attack the uniquely-and-unmistakably prong and the sufficient-fame prong, which is where these refusals are actually beaten, and how to build the third-party-use record that supports it. The names sections cover the consent letter in detail, including the two clauses most consents omit. The insignia sections cover the drawing amendment that converts a barred simulation into a registrable design. It closes with the appeal calculus and what Elster left available.
Keywords: false connection refusal response · notre dame four-part test rebuttal · uniquely and unmistakably · sufficient fame prong · section 2(c) consent letter · written consent drafting · assignable consent · section 2(b) insignia response · ordinary observer flag test · simulation argument · drawing amendment · failure to function response · specimen substitution · ttab ex parte appeal · request for reconsideration · evidence of record · dictionary and media evidence · estate license · publicity rights clearance · examining attorney interview
The doctrine is in Names, Flags, and Offense: The Content-Based Section 2 Bars After Tam, Brunetti, and Elster. Read it if you need why Vidal v. Elster upheld the names clause, or why the false-connection bar survived the two decisions that struck its neighbors. This guide assumes it and starts with an office action and a six-month clock. For the deadline mechanics, note that the response period is three months, extendable once by three months on request and fee, for most applications. See Office Action Deadlines.
This is premium Marksy content — the full document is available to subscribers.