Should the Lanham Act be extended to non-commercial political speech?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq., explicitly protects against the potential chilling of First Amendment-protected speech like that in this case by including in each of its remedial provisions a qualification that the offending use of the mark must have been for commercial purposes. In this case, the Fifth Circuit decision in Alliance I to hold Coalition liable under the Lanham Act for non-commercial political speech was clearly erroneous and results in manifest injustice. Furthermore, the Fifth Circuit decision in Alliance I to hold Jacobs personally liable for the award of attorneys’ fees as Coalition’s counsel under the Lanham Act’s fee-shifting provision, 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a) is unwarranted and contrary to congressional intent. The questions presented are: 1. Should this Court permit the Lanham Act to be extended to non-commercial political speech? 2. Should this Court permit the imposition of a sanction of attorney fees awarded against Counsel for Coalition pursuant to the fee shifting provision of the Lanham Act?