The Law Spot

Supporting Entrepreneurs and Families
Business | Intellectual Property | Estate Planning

Protecting innovation and creativity. Gray PLLC.

With over a decade of intellectual property and business law experience, Melissa has assisted hundreds of clients in protecting valuable assets through contracts, trademark filings, and general business needs. Ranging from startups to Fortune 500 companies, she can offer valuable, effective, and practical advice to clients at any stage of their business journey. Disclaimer: Nothing on this page,

or in links provided on this page, constitutes legal advice or the practice of law. Nor does viewing this page form an attorney/client relationship between you and Melissa H. All visitors should consult with a qualified legal professional regarding their individual questions, needs, or issues that may be of concern. We are not responsible for any action taken by a reader based upon any information on this site. All of the content on this site is for general informational and educational purposes only. Melissa Gray is licensed to practice law in Florida and Texas.

06/17/2026

Just because your brand has been used for years doesn’t make it untouchable.

A lot of founders rely on longevity as proof of ownership. But in IP law, time alone doesn’t create immunity.

Long use can help support a claim — especially in proving goodwill or prior use — but it is not a guarantee against challenge. If someone else has a stronger registration, clearer priority, or better documentation, your long-standing use may not be enough to stop them.

Without proper registration and clear legal priority, even established brands can be forced into disputes, rebranding, or coexistence arrangements they never planned for.

In trademark law, “we’ve always used it” is not the same as “we legally own it.”

06/15/2026

Can a parody name cross the line into trademark infringement?

That’s the issue being tested in the ongoing dispute between Patagonia and climate activist/performer Pattie Gonia over the “Pattie Gonia” name.

Patagonia argues the name is too close to its well-known brand and could create consumer confusion about an affiliation or endorsement. Pattie Gonia, however, maintains that the name is intended as parody and social commentary, bringing expressive use into the center of the legal analysis.

This kind of case highlights a recurring tension in trademark law: protecting brand identity and preventing confusion while also preserving space for commentary, humor, and artistic expression. Courts often look beyond the name itself and assess the overall impression, context, and marketplace use.

It’s a reminder that trademark disputes are rarely just about similarity—they’re about meaning, perception, and context.

Where do you think the line should be drawn between parody and brand confusion?

06/10/2026

Can adding an extra word or letter save you from trademark infringement?

A recent federal court decision involving Jazwares’ “HugMees” line and Kidrobot’s “HUGME” mark suggests the answer may be no. The case has been allowed to proceed, with the court finding that the similarity between the marks may be enough to create a likelihood of confusion at this stage.

For brand owners, this is a useful reminder that small variations in spelling or phrasing do not automatically eliminate risk. Courts continue to focus on overall commercial impression—not just side-by-side differences in wording.

In trademark law, the analysis is not about whether the marks are identical, but whether an ordinary consumer is likely to be confused as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation. That assessment often considers appearance, sound, meaning, and how the marks are used in the marketplace.

Here, the fact that “HugMees” and “HUGME” operate in the same product space—plush toys—adds weight to the confusion analysis, which is why the claim was allowed to move forward rather than being dismissed early.

In trademarks, context matters just as much as creativity.

06/09/2026

Just because you invested in branding doesn’t mean you own the name.

A lot of businesses think that once they’ve spent on logos, packaging, ads, and building recognition, the name is “theirs” already. But in trademark law, it doesn’t work like that.

Ownership comes from legal rights—like who used it first in commerce, whether it’s distinctive, and whether it actually identifies a single source in the market. If someone else already has stronger rights in your space, your branding spend doesn’t override that.

So even if you’ve poured time and money into building a brand, you can still be forced to change it if there’s a conflict.

Building a brand and owning a trademark are two different things—and only one is protected by law.

06/08/2026

A Dallas SaaS founder reached out after receiving investor feedback.

He said, “They like everything… except one thing they flagged in legal.”

I asked what it was.

He replied, “The brand name. They said it might be conflicting with an existing mark.”

When we dug in, there was indeed a similar federal filing.

Nothing had happened yet. No dispute. No complaint.

But the investor’s counsel made it clear: they weren’t moving forward until it was resolved.

What he didn’t expect was that his biggest traction point—his brand—was also his biggest uncertainty.

06/05/2026

I had a Dallas e-commerce founder message me after a viral moment on TikTok.

He said, “We just did 100K in sales in a weekend. It blew up.”

Then almost immediately followed with, “Do we need to worry about anything legal with the brand name?”

We checked.

No USPTO filing.

But there were already similar marks registered in the same class.

He went quiet for a bit and then said, “So… we might have to rebrand after this?”

That’s the part most people don’t expect—virality doesn’t pause legal risk. It accelerates it.

06/04/2026

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused Nike’s application to register a “B9” logo associated with Los Angeles Lakers guard Bronny James, finding a likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) of the Lanham Act with a previously registered mark owned by Back9 Golf Apparel.

According to USPTO records, Nike’s applied-for mark—a stylized “b” and “9” used in connection with apparel and footwear—was found to be highly similar in appearance, sound, and overall commercial impression to Back9’s existing “B9” trademark. The Office concluded that the marks function as phonetic equivalents and are likely to be perceived by consumers as originating from the same or related source.

Back9 Golf Apparel’s “B9” mark predates Nike’s filing, having been first used in 2020, filed in 2021, and registered in 2022. Nike filed its application in February 2026 in connection with apparel tied to Bronny James branding, including product imagery later publicly circulated.

Because both marks cover overlapping clothing goods, the USPTO found that the similarity of the marks, combined with the relatedness of the goods and channels of trade, supports a likelihood of confusion refusal.

The refusal is not final. Nike may still respond by submitting arguments, amending the application, or appealing through standard USPTO procedures.

KEY TAKEAWAY: Even globally dominant brands remain subject to the same core trademark principle—priority plus likelihood of confusion controls outcomes, and minor design variations are often insufficient to overcome a prior registered mark in crowded apparel classes.

06/02/2026

A special milestone this year—I’ve been named to D Magazine’s Best Lawyers in Dallas for 2026, marking my fifth appearance on the list.

Being recognized in 2021, 2023, 2024, 2025, and now 2026 is something I’m truly grateful for. Thank you to my clients, colleagues, and everyone who continues to place their trust in me and our team.

Here’s to continuing the work that makes these moments possible.

05/29/2026

McDonald’s is once again attempting to secure trademark protection for the phrase “Extra Value Meal,” after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office rejected the application on grounds that the term is too generic.

The USPTO’s position is that the phrase simply describes a discounted bundled meal commonly offered across the fast-food industry, rather than functioning as a distinctive brand identifier tied exclusively to McDonald’s.

The dispute highlights a recurring issue in trademark law—when widely used marketing language stops being seen as a brand signal and starts being viewed as part of everyday commercial vocabulary.

McDonald’s has used the term for decades, but the challenge now is evidentiary: proving that consumers still associate “Extra Value Meal” specifically with the McDonald’s brand.

Without that showing of acquired distinctiveness, the phrase risks remaining in the public domain for competitors to use freely.

The case underscores a broader reality for brands: long-term marketing use does not automatically guarantee long-term legal protection.

05/27/2026

We’re moving into a new space! ⚖️

This is where it’s happening—our future office currently under renovation. We’re sharing this early look as the space begins to take shape, step by step.

We can’t wait to show you the finished space—stay tuned for the reveal.

Address

Philadelphia, PA

Telephone

+12675297768

Website

http://thelawspot.com/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Law Spot posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The Law Spot:

Shortcuts

Want your business to be the top-listed Law Practice in Philadelphia?